| From: | Dan Colish <dan(at)unencrypted(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "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 15:37:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20091005153715.GE27563@funkstrom.spiretech.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:28:13AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Dan Colish wrote:
> > 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:
>
> > > > 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!
>
> Why would you argue that point? They are specified in the SQL standard
> somewhere.
>
I do not really think updatable views are needed. Maybe when the standard was
written things are different; I guess you're talking about 2003. Just because
something is in a standard, doesnt mean it has to be implemented. As long as you
don't implement something outside of the standard, I do not have an issue.
--
--Dan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-10-05 15:40:59 | Re: Rules: A Modest Proposal |
| Previous Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-10-05 15:30:48 | Re: COPY enhancements |