| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aliouii Ali <aliouii(dot)ali(at)aol(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tables cannot have INSTEAD OF triggers |
| Date: | 2015-04-01 19:01:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCUc5h2H9bVaX2KvCm28WMXckVi=O3+qmhqPt2vGW4vOCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 April 2015 at 18:37, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-04-01 13:29:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As for partitioning, you could do this:
>>
>> create table parent(...);
>> create table child(...) inherits(parent); -- repeat as needed
>> create view v as select * from parent;
>> attach INSTEAD OF triggers to v
>>
>> Now the application deals only with v, and thinks that's the real
>> table.
>
> Sure, but that's just making things unnecessarily hard. That then
> requires also defining UPDATE/DELETE INSTEAD triggers which otherwise
> would just work.
>
No, because as defined above the view v would be auto-updatable, so
updates and deletes on v would just do the matching update/delete on
parent.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-04-01 19:04:28 | Re: Bug #10432 failed to re-find parent key in index |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-04-01 18:46:01 | Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole? |