Re: updatable/deletable terminology

From: "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: updatable/deletable terminology
Date: 2013-08-08 03:54:04
Message-ID: 1375934044.22594.13@slate
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/07/2013 08:19:03 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> We have these two error messages:
>
> To make the view updatable, provide an unconditional ON UPDATE DO
> INSTEAD rule or an INSTEAD OF UPDATE trigger.
>
> and
>
> To make the view updatable, provide an unconditional ON DELETE DO
> INSTEAD rule or an INSTEAD OF DELETE trigger.
>
> I think it's a bit strange to claim that adding a DELETE rule/trigger
> makes a view *updatable*. I suspect someone thought they would apply
> the term "updatable" in an SQL standard sense, but that seems
> backwards,
> because you get to these error conditions exactly because the view as
> defined was not Updatable(tm).

Isn't the problem here that you need a word, instead of "updateable",
to indicate that table content may be changed (insert/update/
delete) through the view?

So... "to allow the view to influence table content"

Karl <kop(at)meme(dot)com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-08-08 04:00:24 Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- wrapping it up
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-08-08 03:24:27 Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?