Re: inserting to a multi-table view

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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