From: | "mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de "<mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Updatable views |
Date: | 2006-08-26 19:10:55 |
Message-ID: | 20060826191055.46FF849B6C@dd1514.kasserver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
----- Original Message -----
From: alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com <Alvaro Herrera>
To: mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de
Date: 25.08.2006 00:50:59
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Updatable views
>
> Minor suggestion: change get_view_qualification_function to look the
> function by Oid rather than name. I wasn't sure it was actually a good
> idea to use a function that way, but if it's going to stay ...
>
> Another: remove create_nothing_rule, replace with call to
> create_rule_stmt.
>
> Another: change hasRule to return a bool instead of an Oid.
>
> Another: instead of a comment like this:
>
> /*
> * XXX It seems to me that these checks are not necessary; and further,
> * they are useless. This is because the view is just being created,
> * thus it cannot have any rules before the ones we are going to
> * create.
> *
> * XXX What about CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW ???
> */
>
> have a single paragraph explaining why the replace flag is needed.
>
Okay, i'll sent a reworked version asap, but can't get to it before monday.
I'm away from my machine this weekend and have only sporadic access
to my email.
Bernd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2006-08-26 19:36:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-08-26 17:21:49 | Re: Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib |