Re: In RULEs, INSERT does not use DEFAULTs

On 6/12/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > I believe this isn't just my problem. Without access to a the
> > underlying column's DEFAULT, how can people implement the automated
> > WRITEable VIEWs?
>
> That's a reasonable question, but translating "insert null" to "insert
> the default" is not a reasonable answer.
>
> There was some speculation just a couple days ago about inventing a
> function that would compute the default associated with some other
> table's column, but it's not clear how to make that work (in
> particular, how to declare the result type of such a function).
>
I discarded the idea because i couldn't fight with the polymorphic
function to return the correct value in any case.

But i successfully found that hacking rewriteHandler.c can do the
trick. I am using that in updateable views project.

> Another possibility is a command along the lines of
> ALTER view ALTER col LINK DEFAULT TO othertable.col;
> (syntax open to argument of course) which accomplishes the
> same thing without having to figure a way to avoid the constraints
> of a specific function result type.
>

That's sounds like a good idea too

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)