| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Updatable views |
| Date: | 2008-05-08 15:20:06 |
| Message-ID: | 9FCD0A35928192835BA68709@imhotep.credativ.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
--On Donnerstag, Mai 08, 2008 14:42:50 +0100 Simon Riggs
<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That makes sense. I can't see how we would make LOCAL CHECK CONSTRAINTs
> work with rules anyhow.
One of the idea's that came up through the discussion was to make the
rewriter responsible for collecting check constraints such as the local
check condition. They would be pushed down to the executor then where the
correct constraints would be applied. However, i'm currently not in the
position to say if this is doable right now.
The original updatable views patch tracked the state of required and
applied rule conditions during rewrite. This way it applied only the rule
conditions of the specified view in cascading updates.
--
Thanks
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2008-05-08 15:20:08 | Re: Auto-updated fields |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-05-08 14:03:39 | Re: Bogosity in contrib/xml2/Makefile |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-05-08 15:34:39 | Re: Updatable views |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-05-08 13:42:50 | Re: Updatable views |