From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Updateable views... |
Date: | 2003-03-05 17:00:10 |
Message-ID: | 87ptp57nqd.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Eric D Nielsen <nielsene(at)MIT(dot)EDU> writes:
> > In either case is this a place where "exceeding" the spec would be a good
> > thing or a bad thing?
>
> Unless there is an obvious definition of what updating a join means
> (obvious not only to the implementor, but to the user) I think this
> is dangerous territory.
Joins are a *BIG* part of the reason people want updateable views. In every
single case that I updated a view it was a join. Just being able to update
subsets of tables or restricted sets of columns is really a fairly trivial use
of a powerful feature.
In Oracle the constraint is fairly straightforward (at least to describe):
for each column you're updating the primary key of the table it came from has
to be present in the view.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-03-05 17:10:23 | Re: Win32 Powerfail testing |
Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-03-05 16:29:45 | Re: Updateable views... |