| From: | Dan Colish <dan(at)unencrypted(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rules: A Modest Proposal |
| Date: | 2009-10-05 15:20:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20091005152024.GD27563@funkstrom.spiretech.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:18AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
> > I am not sure where that view implemenation is, but I doubt its
> > stalled because of the rule system.
>
> It is.
>
> > You can definitely create updatable views using rules.
>
> Sure you can, but they won't work in various significant corner cases.
>
> Search the archives for "updatable views" for details.
>
I don't even want updatable views!
I'm looking through those archives and its vague what killed them, but bad rules
are definitely part of it. However, that doesn't mean you ditch the rule system
because it didn't work for this particular situation.
Maybe you could highlight some messages that point to the precise corner cases
that make rules so bad? I would expect these corner cases would have nothing to
do with updatable views, since they are such a bad idea to have automatically
implemented.
--
--Dan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-10-05 15:28:13 | Re: Rules: A Modest Proposal |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2009-10-05 15:14:38 | Re: 8.5 TODO: any info on "Create dump tool for write-ahead logs..." in PITR section (1.4)? |