| From: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
| Date: | 2009-01-25 08:41:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10901250041l5bcbfcfahb131fbd21741d481@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think that we probably want the rules to show up automatically during
> an upgrade from an older version
I'm really not convinced by that. Is it required by the standard? It's
really far from being compliant with the principle of least surprise.
Personnally, I don't expect my views to become updatable.
There should be an easy way to make a view become updatable but making
all of them updatable automagically on upgrade seems weird.
Another question related to the choice of explicit rules for the
implementation: if we change the way these rules are generated in 8.5,
will we upgrade all the existing rules? What if the user modified one
of them on purpose?
--
Guillaume
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-01-25 12:07:09 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-01-25 05:59:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-25 09:04:01 | Re: Hot standby, dropping a tablespace |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-01-25 05:59:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |