| From: | Eric D Nielsen <nielsene(at)MIT(dot)EDU> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Eric D Nielsen <nielsene(at)MIT(dot)EDU>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, nielsene(at)MIT(dot)EDU |
| Subject: | Re: Updateable views... |
| Date: | 2003-03-05 15:39:02 |
| Message-ID: | 200303051539.KAA24120@nerd-xing.mit.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > I haven't had time to look into it further, but it occurs to me that
> > handling views which rely on joins would be far from trivial.
>
> Views containing joins would not be updatable; problem solved.
I see how that is what the spec says, but aren't the majority of joins that
people use/want to update a join of some type? I thought that SQL99 allowed
updating view created by joins.
In either case is this a place where "exceeding" the spec would be a good
thing or a bad thing?
Eric
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-05 15:47:44 | Re: Updateable views... |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-05 15:36:06 | Re: [PATCHES] Non-colliding auto generated names |