Re: [PATCHES] Updatable views

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Updatable views
Date: 2006-09-01 15:34:49
Message-ID: 20060901153449.GE3755@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bernd Helmle wrote:

> <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> >* It's too early in the morning for me to be clear about the difference
> >between CASCADED and LOCAL CHECK OPTION --- I think that this would
> >merely alter the set of check constraints collected for a particular
> >query, but if there's something more fundamental there, this scheme
> >might not work at all. So look into that first.
>
> LOCAL checks the data to be updated against its own view WHERE
> condition only, where CASCADED involves all WHERE conditions of all
> underlying views.

I don't understand this part very well. Say if you have a view WITH
CHECK OPTION whose condition is "foo > 5", and then define a view WITH
LOCAL CHECK OPTION on top of that, whose condition is "bar > 5". Does
the local check option on the second view that I can insert a row with
foo=4, bar=6? That doesn't violate the condition of bar > 5, so it
seems fine to me. But it also seems quite idiotic because it violated
the original foo>5 condition.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-01 15:41:16 Re: [PATCHES] Updatable views
Previous Message Bernd Helmle 2006-09-01 15:30:44 Re: [PATCHES] Updatable views