From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)pathwaynet(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? |
Date: | 1999-07-13 01:35:40 |
Message-ID: | 199907130135.VAA02759@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Stonebraker was wrong - and must have been bacause today we
> want to get SQL92 compliant - and that spec didn't existed
> when he designed our rule sytem. The rule system is
> something we got from the good old v4.2 Postgres. That
> wasn't an SQL database, the querylanguage was POSTQUEL. So it
> isn't surprising that the original rule system spec's don't
> meet today's SQL needs.
>
> For thing's like aggregates, distinct/grouping and the like,
> we need to take a step backward and really do some kind of
> view materialization (create a real execution path for the
> view's definition). But don't force that to be done whenever
> a view is used - that doesn't make things better.
Thanks. Now I understand why aggregates cause problems with rules.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gene Sokolov | 1999-07-13 06:34:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO list |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-07-13 01:25:27 | Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? |