On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 10:39, Eric D Nielsen wrote:
> > Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > > I haven't had time to look into it further, but it occurs to me that
> > > handling views which rely on joins would be far from trivial.
> > Views containing joins would not be updatable; problem solved.
> I see how that is what the spec says, but aren't the majority of joins that
> people use/want to update a join of some type? I thought that SQL99 allowed
> updating view created by joins.
> In either case is this a place where "exceeding" the spec would be a good
> thing or a bad thing?
Lets try to meet the spec first, then debate about whether extending it
is a good or bad thing :)
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Curt Sampson||Date: 2003-03-05 16:29:45|
|Subject: Re: Updateable views... |
|Previous:||From: Rod Taylor||Date: 2003-03-05 16:07:04|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Non-colliding auto generated names|