From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Concurrently updating an updatable view |
Date: | 2007-05-15 16:28:58 |
Message-ID: | 4649DFCA.50703@phlo.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Huxton wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Florian G. Pflug wrote:
>>
>>> I think there should be a big, fat warning that self-referential
>>> updates have highly non-obvious behaviour in read-committed mode,
>>> and should be avoided.
>>
>> It seems pretty difficult for PostgreSQL rule system to avoid such
>> kind of updates. I'm suspicious if UPDATABLE VIEWS can be implemented
>> using the rule system.
>
> Remember this affects all self-referential joins on an UPDATE (and
> DELETE?) not just views. It's just that a rule is more likely to produce
> that type of query.
Is there consensus what the correct behaviour should be for
self-referential updates in read-committed mode? Does the SQL Spec
have anything to say about this?
greetings, Florian Pflug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-05-15 16:41:49 | Re: Not ready for 8.3 |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-05-15 16:18:19 | Re: Managing the community information stream |