| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 15:48:59 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimxcoJxbvE0jxMYVdzg0Qb-=smN8CP3qY0k8MPP@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 23:45, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> We need RULEs or INSTEAD OF TRIGGERs to support updatable foreign tables.
>
> We do? Why can't the support for updating foreign tables be built-in
> rather than trigger-based?
Do we have any concrete idea for the built-in update feature?
There are no definitions in the SQL standard about interface for updates.
So, I think RULE and TRIGGER are the best solution for now.
In addition, even if we support some kinds of built-in update feature,
I still think RULE and TRIGGER are useful, for example, logging purpose.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-12-14 15:51:36 | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-12-14 15:45:28 | Re: Tab completion for view triggers in psql |