From: | "Richard Broersma" <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Shulman" <shulman(at)mathcamp(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inserting to a multi-table view |
Date: | 2008-06-17 05:37:09 |
Message-ID: | 396486430806162237q4b4faf78j541e49ddb4a83be6@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Richard Broersma
<richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Michael Shiulman <shulman(at)mathcamp(dot)org> wrote:
> Anyway, here is a link discussing a generalized vertical partitioned
> view. Perhaps it can give you some idea to get yourself rolling.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-12/msg01119.php
Oops, there is one other thing to bring up. If your clients
front-ends use a form of Optimistic locking, they will probably balk
at update-able views on vertically partitioned joined tables.
However, in the case of using ODBC, there was a work-around that
solved the problem of optimistic locking. However, you are still
faced with the problem of update anomalies caused by concurrent
updates on your base tables.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-odbc/2006-12/msg00029.php
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
Visit the Los Angles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-06-17 06:06:55 | Re: PostgreSQL and AMD? |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma | 2008-06-17 05:24:50 | Re: inserting to a multi-table view |