Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
>>Yann Michel wrote:
>>>I think you mean UNION ALL, i.e. the set addition, don't you?
>>Not if you can identify the underlying table(s) and key(s). If the UNION
>>hides that information, then you are correct.
> If a unique key of the underlying table is included in the UNION data, then
> there can't be any duplicate rows and so the UNION really reduces to
> UNION ALL. However, I'm unconvinced that there are any cases like this
> that are interesting in practice. Consider
> CREATE TABLE a (id int primary key, ...);
> CREATE TABLE b (id int primary key, ...);
> CREATE VIEW v AS SELECT * FROM a UNION SELECT * FROM b;
> If a and b have disjoint key sets then the UNION is theoretically
> updatable, but there is no way to specify such a constraint and thus
> no way for the system to know that the UNION is updatable.
CREATE TABLE a(id int primary key check < 100, ...)
CREATE TABLE b(id int primary key check > 100, ...)
In any case, imagine a diary system where you might have an booking
involving one or more people and/or resources (room/projector). You'd
quite possibly have:
SELECT 'P' as res_type, p_id, p_name FROM event_person
SELECT 'R', r_id, r_type FROM event_resource
Again, updatable (although I'm not sure how you'd detect the implied
CHECK on the first column).
None of this is easy, or even practical but I'm fairly sure it's all
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Richard Huxton||Date: 2004-12-22 17:32:50|
|Subject: Re: Thoughts about updateable views|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-12-22 17:09:45|
|Subject: Re: Thoughts about updateable views |