| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch] |
| Date: | 2012-11-08 14:38:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCV=gPDhrg7=HYFVMm6pRJzbnpEbwfuA7Lo6pnz_cs5aUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 November 2012 08:33, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> OK, yes I think we do need to be throwing the error at runtime rather
> than at plan time. That's pretty easy if we just keep the current
> error message...
Oh wait, that's nonsense (not enough caffeine). The rewrite code needs
to know whether there are INSTEAD OF triggers before it decides
whether it's going to substitute the base relation. The fundamental
problem is that the plans with and without triggers are completely
different, and there's no way the executor is going to notice the
addition of triggers if they weren't there when the query was
rewritten and planned.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-11-08 14:50:59 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-11-08 14:36:32 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |