| From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bernd Helmle" <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Automatic view update rules |
| Date: | 2008-11-13 17:58:45 |
| Message-ID: | 94450DFD-2918-41FE-A081-8A67CC1706D4@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> - Should this be an optional behavior? What if I don't WANT my view
> to be updateable?
That seems like a deal-breaker to me... many users could easily be
depending on views not being updateable. Views are generally always
thought of as read-only, so you should need to explicitly mark a view
as being updateable/insertable/deleteable.
It's tempting to try and use permissions to try and handle this, but
I don't think that's safe either: nothing prevents you from doing
GRANT ALL on a view with no rules, and such a view would suddenly
become updateable.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-11-13 18:00:00 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-13 17:49:10 | Re: pg_filedump for CVS HEAD |