Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: COPY view

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPY view
Date: 2006-06-14 21:35:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> >
> > why do we agree on a patch, implement it and reject it then?
> > would be easier to reject it before actually implementing it ...
> > it is quite hard to explain to a customer that something is rejected 
> > after approval - even if things are written properly ...
> >
> >  
> That's a good point and I understand the pain.
> Could we maybe do  this?: Take the patch as it is now, and if/when we 
> get the more general syntax we do a little magic under the hood to turn
>   COPY viewname TO
> into
>  COPY (select * from viewname) TO

We could.  But we would do it because we want that behavior on its own,
rather than doing it just to support a feature we added in the past.

The question is, if we were adding the query syntax _now_, would we want
to do views that way?  If so, we can add the patch and just fix it up
when we get the queries.

  Bruce Momjian

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-14 21:36:25
Subject: Re: COPY view
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-14 21:31:44
Subject: Re: COPY view

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group