| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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 14:42:11 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikzG7XvUajb=XBAgFZa67iupcXzPyFs1bMeTnMo@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Do you suggest to define a wrapper view if we want to create an updatable
foreign table? I think users don't like such kind of wrappers.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 14:43:54 | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 14:38:25 | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |