From: | Seb <spluque(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inserting to a multi-table view |
Date: | 2008-09-29 00:31:52 |
Message-ID: | 87hc7z6bd3.fsf@patagonia.sebmags.homelinux.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:46:27 -0700,
"Richard Broersma" <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Michael Shulman <shulman(at)mathcamp(dot)org> wrote:
>> Would it be possible to actually do something like this in an update
>> rule? You couldn't write the "begin/commit", but it seems that you
>> wouldn't need to either, since the UPDATE command invoking the rule
>> will be wrapped in its own begin/commit (automatic or explicit).
> Thats a good question. I've never tried it. and since then, I gotten
> away from using update-able view. In my case, I like using Natural
> Primary keys so update-able views wouldn't work for me any more. :o)
I've read this thread with great interest as I'm coming to PostgreSQL
from the MS Access world of databases, where one can enter new data into
queries/forms and tables get automatically updated/deleted/inserted into
where expected.
I'm also leaning towards using natural keys where possible and was
wondering how best to create multi-table views that can be
updated/deleted/inserted into. Therefore, any further insights
following the discussion above would be very helpful. Particularly, I'm
curious to learn how PostgreSQL database maintainers handle data
entry/modification requiring multi-table queries. Thanks.
--
Seb
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Wilson | 2008-09-29 02:32:56 | NULL values seem to short-circuit my unique index |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-28 17:34:45 | Re: Can anyone explain? |