From: | "Bernd Helmle" <bernd(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
Cc: | "Bernd Helmle" <bernd(at)oopsware(dot)de>, "Bernd Helmle" <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Automatic view update rules |
Date: | 2008-12-29 20:53:43 |
Message-ID: | 49290.62.152.162.10.1230584023.squirrel@tooney.at.xencon.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Bernd Helmle <bernd(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
>
> i would say check for negative attnums and deny that view to be
> updateable because of SQL92 says in 11.19 <view definition> syntax
> rule 6:
> """
> 6) If the <query expression> is updatable, then the viewed table
> is
> an updatable table. Otherwise, it is a read-only table.
> """
> wich i understand as deny updatability in any view that constains non
> updateable <query expression> in the target list
>
Yes, but afaiks SQL99 allows partial updatable column lists, so we could
argue that we can follow this. However, it seems your approach is better
for now.
>
> yes. if we didn't do that we will be against spec. syntax rule 12
> (again in 11.19 <view definition> ) says:
> """
> 12)If WITH CHECK OPTION is specified, then the viewed table shall
> be updatable.
>
> """
Okay.
I'm currently travelling (visiting my parents during turn of the year),
checking my mail sporadically. I'll provide an updated patch ASAP.
Bernd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-12-29 21:02:04 | Re: Idea - fallback mode for psql backslash commands using information_schema |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-12-29 19:59:16 | Re: TODO items for window functions |