Re: [9.3] Automatically updatable views vs writable foreign tables

Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The more I read the spec, the less sense it seems to make, and each
> time I read it, I seem to reach a different conclusion.

> On my latest reading, I've almost convinced myself that "updatable" is
> meant to imply support for all 3 operations (INSERT, UPDATE and
> DELETE), at least in the absence of transient tables. The descriptions
> of all 3 seem to require the table to be updatable.

Still, they do admit the possibility of insertable_into being different
from is_updatable. So I'm pretty happy with what we've got, at least
on the relation level. Columns seem a bit more debatable; though I
continue to think that an is_updatable column in a not-is_updatable
table isn't contemplated by the spec.

regards, tom lane