From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Automatic view update rules |
Date: | 2009-01-09 16:53:31 |
Message-ID: | 3B3B2ACA2DB4AF9AF585FBAF@teje |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On Freitag, Januar 09, 2009 13:20:57 +0100 Bernd Helmle
<mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
> That means, View1 consists of View2 and so on. What happens now if
> someone is going to change View3, so that it's not updatable anymore?
> What the patch actually does is, scanning all relations/views involved in
> a current view (and cascading updates) und reject update rules as soon as
> it finds more than one relation within a view definition. Unfortunately
> this seems not to be enough, we had really check all involved views for
> updatability recursively. The infrastructure for this is already there,
> but i wonder if it could be made easier when we are going to maintain a
> separate is_updatable flag somewhere in the catalog, which would make
> checking the relation tree for updatability more easier.
I've decided to check updatability of all involved views during view
creation. Please find attached a new version with all other open issues
adressed.
--
Thanks
Bernd
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
view_update.patch.bz2 | application/octet-stream | 12.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-09 16:57:26 | Re: Improving compressibility of WAL files |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-09 16:52:37 | Re: Hot standby, RestoreBkpBlocks and cleanup locks |