| From: | "Mark Hollomon" <mhh(at)nortelnetworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Backend-internal SPI operations |
| Date: | 2000-08-30 12:31:10 |
| Message-ID: | 39ACFE8E.CCFAB07B@americasm01.nt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Mark Hollomon" <mhh(at)nortelnetworks(dot)com> writes:
> > > Just out of curiousity, is there technical reason there isn't
> > > a (say) relisview attribute to pg_class?
> >
> > That might indeed be the most reasonable way to attack it, rather
> > than having to go messing about looking for a matching rule.
> > (Jan, any thoughts here?)
>
> The right way IMHO would be to give views another relkind.
> Then we could easily
>
> 1. detect if the final query after rewriting still tries to
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE a view - i.e. "missing rewrite
> rule(s)".
This appeals to me. The current silent no-op behavior of INSERT/DELETE on a view
is annoying.
--
Mark Hollomon
mhh(at)nortelnetworks(dot)com
ESN 451-9008 (302)454-9008
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-30 14:20:43 | Re: Backend-internal SPI operations |
| Previous Message | Mark Hollomon | 2000-08-30 12:18:02 | Re: disallow LOCK on a view - the Tom Lane remix |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-30 14:20:43 | Re: Backend-internal SPI operations |
| Previous Message | Mark Hollomon | 2000-08-30 12:18:02 | Re: disallow LOCK on a view - the Tom Lane remix |