From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views |
Date: | 2012-08-31 06:59:43 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCV9Z1rnjZh_sHFN+p_PmiD-E8OMMe0UEmC4hcwEi4SN7g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30 August 2012 20:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> None of this new code kicks in for non-security barrier views, so the
>> kinds of plans I posted upthread remain unchanged in that case. But
>> now a significant fraction of the patch is code added to handle
>> security barrier views. Of course we could simply say that such views
>> aren't updatable, but that seems like an annoying limitation if there
>> is a feasible way round it.
>
> Maybe it'd be a good idea to split this into two patches: the first
> could implement the feature but exclude security_barrier views, and
> the second could lift that restriction.
>
Yes, I think that makes sense.
I should hopefully get some time to look at it over the weekend.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-08-31 08:03:34 | Cascading replication and recovery_target_timeline='latest' |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-08-31 05:12:20 | Re: wal_buffers |