| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing COPY into views |
| Date: | 2007-04-19 22:08:53 |
| Message-ID: | 87mz14f24q.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> The threads to updatable views have concluded rejecting the patches, and
> with ideas that require rather extensive rewriting of the rule manager,
I have some ideas on a different approach to this if anyone's thinking of
starting fresh but I had the impression that the patches were rejected because
they were unnecessarily complex, not because the overall approach was
rejected.
> Updatable views are not going to handle COPY anyway ...
Well I noticed this as I was writing it. Even once you have updateable views
you would still have to have code in COPY supporting creating insert
statements which isn't how it works now.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2007-04-19 22:21:09 | Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-04-19 21:53:43 | Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions |