| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karen Hill <karen_hill22(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 |
| Date: | 2007-01-31 08:33:43 |
| Message-ID: | e5795b486a9cfe7bad98dffc27058c5b@oopsware.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 30 Jan 2007 12:15:17 -0800, "Karen Hill" <karen_hill22(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 11:06 pm, qne(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com ("Dawid Kuroczko") wrote:
>
>> * updatable views [ or am I missing something? ] -- it seems to me
>> they were close to be completed, but I don't remember if they were
>> completed and committed or not.
>>
>
> PostgreSQL has updatable views via the rules system. I use updatable
> views all the time in postgres.
>
>
The point is that you can't do things with the rule system reliable the SQL standard
tells us to do. The CHECK OPTION is an example, this can't be modeled
using rules only.
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikael Carneholm | 2007-01-31 08:57:21 | Re: DBMS Engines and Performance |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2007-01-31 08:27:36 | Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server? |