Re: new relkind for views

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Hollomon <mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: new relkind for views
Date: 2000-09-12 04:49:10
Message-ID: 200009120449.AAA11103@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Applied. initdb all, catalog version updated.

>
> This patch implements a different "relkind"
> for views. Views are now have a "relkind" of
> RELKIND_VIEW instead of RELKIND_RELATION.
>
> Also, views no longer have actual heap storage
> files.
>
> The following changes were made
>
> 1. CREATE VIEW sets the new relkind
>
> 2. The executor complains if a DELETE or
> INSERT references a view.
>
> 3. DROP RULE complains if an attempt is made
> to delete a view SELECT rule.
>
> 4. CREATE RULE "_RETmytable" AS ON SELECT TO mytable DO INSTEAD ...
> 1. checks to make sure mytable is empty.
> 2. sets the relkind to RELKIND_VIEW.
> 3. deletes the heap storage files.
>
> 5. LOCK myview is not allowed. :)
>
>
> 6. the regression test type_sanity was changed to
> account for the new relkind value.
>
> 7. CREATE INDEX ON myview ... is not allowed.
>
> 8. VACUUM myview is not allowed.
> VACUUM automatically skips views when do the entire
> database.
>
> 9. TRUNCATE myview is not allowed.
>
>
> THINGS LEFT TO THINK ABOUT
>
> o pg_views
>
> o pg_dump
>
> o pgsql (\d \dv)
>
> o Do we really want to be able to inherit from views?
>
> o Is 'DROP TABLE myview' OK?
>
> --
> Mark Hollomon
> mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message William Webber 2000-09-12 04:50:41 JDBC: prevent NullPointerException if translations missing
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-09-12 04:41:27 Re: Small SSL-related patch...