Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>,PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS?
Date: 2002-09-28 11:08:54
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0209281231120.1149-100000@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian writes:

> Well, let's look at the common case.  For proper view rules, these would
> all return the right values because the UPDATE in the rule would be
> returned.  Is that what you mean?

I guess that really depends on whether the rules are written to properly
constrain the writes to the view to the set of rows visible by the view.
For example, if a view v1 selects from a single table t1 constrained by a
search condition, and I do UPDATE v1 SET ...; without a condition, does
that affect all rows in t1?  If not, then both our proposals are
equivalent, if yes, then the it's the user's fault, I suppose.

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-09-28 11:10:37
Subject: Re: AIX compilation problems (was Re: Proposal ...)
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-09-28 11:08:36
Subject: Re: hacker help: PHP-4.2.3 patch to allow restriction of

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group