| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 14:45:03 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikZJ7mGhSNrMpB6nZje7gQGGLgMYx64EP3Xfqi3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 23:38, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, I don't really see any advantage to allowing rules
>>>> on foreign tables - ever. Unless there's some reason we really need
>>>> that, my gut feeling would be to rip it out and forget about it.
>>>
>>> views, updateable views?
>>
>> We already have those. They have their own relkind. Why would we
>> need to duplicate that here?
>
> We need RULEs or INSTEAD OF TRIGGERs to support updatable foreign tables.
We do? Why can't the support for updating foreign tables be built-in
rather than trigger-based?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-14 14:51:48 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 14:43:54 | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |