| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-09-28 11:10:37 | Re: AIX compilation problems (was Re: Proposal ...) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-09-28 11:08:36 | Re: hacker help: PHP-4.2.3 patch to allow restriction of |