Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Updateable views...

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Updateable views...
Date: 2003-03-05 17:00:10
Message-ID: 87ptp57nqd.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Eric D Nielsen <nielsene(at)MIT(dot)EDU> writes:
> > In either case is this a place where "exceeding" the spec would be a good 
> > thing or a bad thing?
> 
> Unless there is an obvious definition of what updating a join means
> (obvious not only to the implementor, but to the user) I think this
> is dangerous territory.

Joins are a *BIG* part of the reason people want updateable views. In every
single case that I updated a view it was a join. Just being able to update
subsets of tables or restricted sets of columns is really a fairly trivial use
of a powerful feature.

In Oracle the constraint is fairly straightforward (at least to describe): 
for each column you're updating the primary key of the table it came from has
to be present in the view.


-- 
greg


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-03-05 17:10:23
Subject: Re: Win32 Powerfail testing
Previous:From: Curt SampsonDate: 2003-03-05 16:29:45
Subject: Re: Updateable views...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group