Re: Updateable views was:(Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for SYNONYMS)

Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 3/9/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> Eh? I thought that it was just syntatic sugar that was missing. I've
>>> built lots of updatable views manually; I don't see what's difficult about
>>> it.
>> I think you'll find that corner cases like inserts involving nextval()
>> don't work real well with a rule-based updatable view. But perhaps I'm
>> just scarred by the many complaints we've had about rules. With a plain
>> unconditional DO INSTEAD rule it might be OK ...

> the last time i talk with Bernd Helmle, he was preparing the code to
> send to patches for discussion... that was two months ago...
>
> the current code had problems with casts and i think with domains too...
>
> i will contact with Bernd to know if he did some more work, if not i
> can send to patches the latest path he sent me...

I'd certainly be interested in having auto-updatable views in 8.2 - even
if it was only for the simplest of cases. If I can be of any help
testing etc. let me know.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd