| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
| Date: | 2009-01-26 11:48:24 |
| Message-ID: | 6DAFE8F5425AB84DB3FCA4537D829A561CF5E55F5F@M0164.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> There is another thing that's bothering me, though, which is that the
> present approach to dumping rules isn't adequate. Consider the
> following scenario:
>
> 1. You create a view that the system considers updatable, so
> it creates
> some automatic rules.
>
> 2. You don't want those rules, so you delete them, leaving
> you with the
> traditional behavior where attempted inserts etc on the view fail.
Is that why other db's only make views updateable, that are created
"WITH CHECK OPTION" ? Should we also follow that path ?
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-01-26 16:00:37 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-01-26 10:20:11 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-01-26 11:53:33 | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-26 11:35:36 | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |