| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Updatable views |
| Date: | 2008-05-08 15:34:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1210260879.4268.390.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 17:20 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On Donnerstag, Mai 08, 2008 14:42:50 +0100 Simon Riggs
> <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > That makes sense. I can't see how we would make LOCAL CHECK CONSTRAINTs
> > work with rules anyhow.
>
> One of the idea's that came up through the discussion was to make the
> rewriter responsible for collecting check constraints such as the local
> check condition. They would be pushed down to the executor then where the
> correct constraints would be applied. However, i'm currently not in the
> position to say if this is doable right now.
That's what I was thinking too.
> The original updatable views patch tracked the state of required and
> applied rule conditions during rewrite. This way it applied only the rule
> conditions of the specified view in cascading updates.
Yes, seems like the only way we'll get LOCAL CHECK CONSTRAINTS to work.
Are you planning to work on this?
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-08 15:36:15 | Re: Bogosity in contrib/xml2/Makefile |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-05-08 15:20:08 | Re: Auto-updated fields |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-05-08 17:43:54 | Re: Posting to hackers and patches lists |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2008-05-08 15:20:06 | Re: Updatable views |