Re: INSTEAD OF trigger on VIEWs

From: "Jan B(dot)" <jan(at)monso(dot)de>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: --= Tono =-- <tonodarmodjo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: INSTEAD OF trigger on VIEWs
Date: 2005-05-23 15:01:12
Message-ID: 4291F038.3040100@monso.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

>> I have a similar problem and already considered using RULEs, but I
>> encountered the problem, that I did not find any way to execute
>> procedures from RULEs without using SELECT, which creates always a
>> result set being passed to the application invoking the INSERT,
>> UPDATE or DELETE, even if the function is declared VOID. This is
>> causing trouble when using asynchronous command processing.
>
>
> The solution then is for us to get around to implementing procedures,
> rather than functions, in PostgreSQL I think.
>
> Chris
>
Yes, I think that this would be a good way to solve the problem, but is
it planned to implement procedures in near future?
What about extending the SQL command set by an "INVOKE" command, which
invokes a function and discards the result?

Jan Behrens

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-05-23 15:13:47 Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2005-05-23 14:46:26 Re: INSTEAD OF trigger on VIEWs