From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)pathwaynet(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? |
Date: | 1999-07-12 21:24:44 |
Message-ID: | 20920.931814684@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)pathwaynet(dot)com> writes:
>> The way Jan explained it to me, a view *is* a table that happens to
>> have an "on select do instead" rule attached to it. If the table
>> has data in it (which it normally wouldn't) you can't see that data
>> anyway because of the select rule.
> Does anyone else see a problem with this? This sort of approach almost
> prevents views with distinct, union, order by, etc. from ever being
> implemented.
What makes you think that? We do have work to do before some of those
things will work, but I don't think it has anything to do with whether
there is an empty table underlying a view...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-07-13 01:25:27 | Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? |
Previous Message | Uncle George | 1999-07-12 19:27:29 | Postgres Alpha Port On RH6.0 |