Re: Feature suggestions (long)

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Feature suggestions (long)
Date: 2003-05-19 11:59:52
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961FB3@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> But the RULE system is not really suited to this. I havn't written it
all
> out but by my calculations the number of rules required is about
(N^2+N)/2
> where N is the number of partitions. That's one UPDATE rule for each
pair of
> tables plus a set of INSERT rules (DELETE requires nothing special).
And
> each of those rules will be used every single time that table is
queried
> (both inserts and updates). That's not terribly efficient.
> Mind you, maybe there's a better way of doing it. I havn't totally
gotten my
> head around rules. Maybe it indicates that improvements could be made
to the
> rule system.

What you need is one view that is a union all select selecting all your
partial
tables, all applications only accesses this one view.
You need 1 insert 2 update 1 delete rule for each table plus 3 remainder
rules
(=4*N + 3 rules) (the select rule is already done by create view),
plus one check constraint for each partial table.

You can restrict access to the partial tables with normal
grant/revoke's.
The appls only need grants on the view (which is updateable with above
rules).

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2003-05-19 13:17:48 Re: Feature suggestions (long)
Previous Message ohp 2003-05-19 11:59:21 Interessting problem