From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Updateable views |
Date: | 2004-12-27 20:45:08 |
Message-ID: | 22761.1104180308@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I think you want to extend the SQL syntax to allow updating views, and
> implement plan nodes and executor functionality to handle them. So things
> like this works:
> UPDATE (SELECT id,val FROM t) SET val=0 where id < 100
> Then the rules you create on the views are just like the rules for SELECT,
> they simply mechanically replace the view with the view definition.
> I think this is the right approach because:
> a) I think creating the general rules to transform an update into an update on
> the underlying table will be extremely complex, and you'll only ever be
> able to handle the simplest cases. By handling the view at planning time
> you'll be able to handle arbitrarily complex cases limited only by whether
> you can come up with reasonable semantics.
Please provide an existence proof. I don't really see any basis for the
claim that this will be simpler to implement --- the semantic problems
will be the same either way.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2004-12-27 21:11:11 | displaying contents |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2004-12-27 20:01:47 | Schema permissions inheiritance |