| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Eric D Nielsen <nielsene(at)MIT(dot)EDU> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Updateable views... |
| Date: | 2003-03-05 16:12:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1046880721.19527.10.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-03-05 16:29:45 | Re: Updateable views... |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-03-05 16:07:04 | Re: [PATCHES] Non-colliding auto generated names |