| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "CREATE RULE ... ON SELECT": redundant? |
| Date: | 2023-05-04 06:20:46 |
| Message-ID: | 87jzxoboyf.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
Andrew> I thought they used CREATE RULE on a table?
Andrew> In fact here is an example from a pg 9.5 pg_dump output (with
Andrew> cruft removed):
And checking other versions, 9.6 is the same, it's only with pg 10 that
it switches to creating a dummy view instead of a table (and using
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW, no mention of rules).
So if the goal was to preserve compatibility with pre-pg10 dumps, that's
already broken; if that's ok, then I don't see any obvious reason not to
also remove or at least deprecate CREATE RULE ... ON SELECT for views.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2023-05-04 06:39:49 | Re: Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2023-05-04 06:13:04 | Re: "CREATE RULE ... ON SELECT": redundant? |