From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Rules: A Modest Proposal |
Date: | 2009-10-05 02:46:56 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070910041946m5c04419bt4491bf3a74d2cf2f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>
>> > While I don't agree with David Fetter's premise, I think rehashing how
>> > we handle VIEWs would be a good step towards updatable views. Right
>> > now, the implementation of that is stalled precisely because of the rule
>> > system.
>>
>> This is the last I remember hearing of it, which seems to suggest that
>> only a week's worth of work (maybe a bit more for those of us who are
>> not Tom Lane) is needed:
>
> Right, that's exactly what I meant. Note that a week's worth of Tom
> work in that area is probably measured in months for anybody else ("a
> bit more" in your words),
:-)
> and this fits my definition of "rehashing view
> handling".
The trick is to get rid of the self-join, I suppose, but it's unclear
to me whether some change to the existing view handling would make
that easier. Do you have an idea?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-05 02:53:02 | Re: dblink memory leak |
Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-10-05 02:46:45 | dblink memory leak |