| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views |
| Date: | 2012-08-30 19:05:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoba=sbvS5M5tJ6AN4zBaeBsKRk_v71=sfSVTWfCqkGDbQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> None of this new code kicks in for non-security barrier views, so the
> kinds of plans I posted upthread remain unchanged in that case. But
> now a significant fraction of the patch is code added to handle
> security barrier views. Of course we could simply say that such views
> aren't updatable, but that seems like an annoying limitation if there
> is a feasible way round it.
Maybe it'd be a good idea to split this into two patches: the first
could implement the feature but exclude security_barrier views, and
the second could lift that restriction.
Just a thought.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-30 19:10:31 | Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-30 19:01:11 | Re: patch: shared session variables |