| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Aliouii Ali <aliouii(dot)ali(at)aol(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tables cannot have INSTEAD OF triggers |
| Date: | 2015-04-01 17:22:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20150401172222.GD3071@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> So, the idea is that INSTEAD OF would behave like BEFORE but the tuple
> >> it returns wouldn't actually be inserted? That wasn't clear to me
> >> from the OP, but I guess it would be a reasonable way to go.
>
> > I'm not sure what the OP intended, but to me that's pretty much the only
> > reasonable definition of INSTEAD OF for tables that I can think of.
>
> If you have such a trigger, it's impossible to insert any rows, which
> means the table doesn't need storage, which means it may as well be a
> view, no?
The interesting difference, as per upthread, is that you can have child
tables (partitions) and don't need a defining query but instead have a
defined set of named and typed columns.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-01 17:29:33 | Re: Tables cannot have INSTEAD OF triggers |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-01 17:20:50 | Re: Tables cannot have INSTEAD OF triggers |