Re: SQL/MED - core functionality

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - core functionality
Date: 2010-12-14 14:38:25
Message-ID: AANLkTinTiarYHrdH=oAh202reyNVzLudnM4xw9C8=5KM@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On the other hand, I don't really see any advantage to allowing rules
>> on foreign tables - ever.  Unless there's some reason we really need
>> that, my gut feeling would be to rip it out and forget about it.
>
> views, updateable views?

We already have those. They have their own relkind. Why would we
need to duplicate that here?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Itagaki Takahiro 2010-12-14 14:42:11 Re: SQL/MED - core functionality
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-12-14 14:34:55 Re: Instrument checkpoint sync calls