Re: Column defaults fail with rules on view

From: <btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com>
To: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Column defaults fail with rules on view
Date: 2003-09-19 15:51:30
Message-ID: 65122.216.238.112.88.1063986690.squirrel@$HOSTNAME
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
>> On Friday 19 September 2003 09:00, btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com wrote:
>>> Is this supposed to work that way? I would expect field3 and field4
>>> to have their respective column defaults assigned on the second
>>> INSERT (row B), just like on the first INSERT (row A).
>
>> Hmm - well, you're explicitly telling it to insert VALUES (...,
>> new.field3, ...) so if new.field3 is null then it *should* do that.
>
> Exactly. The defaults attached to the underlying table determine what
> gets added to an INSERT into the underlying table. In this case, since
> the rule's INSERT specifies all the fields, there is no scope for those
> defaults to apply.
>
> What Berend actually wants is to attach column defaults to the *view*,
> so that they apply to an INSERT mentioning the view. You can do this
> in recent PG releases (7.3 for sure, not sure about 7.2) using ALTER
> TABLE ... ADD DEFAULT.

Now THAT's WAY cool! I can do ALTER TABLE ...ADD DEFAULT against views?

Sounds like exactly the ticket. Just tried it. It works.

That is SO sweet...the more I learn about pg the more excited I get.

~Berend Tober

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message btober 2003-09-19 15:53:26 Re: Column defaults fail with rules on view
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2003-09-19 15:49:32 Re: Rockets (was Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL)