From: | "Omar Bettin" <o(dot)bettin(at)informaticaindustriale(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: feature request |
Date: | 2010-02-25 22:17:03 |
Message-ID: | FAA31728964B4D2F8603021C57ED0A62@fly01 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
...could be
STORE WHERE [condition] FROM [table] INTO [database]
regards
Omar Bettin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Omar Bettin" <o(dot)bettin(at)informaticaindustriale(dot)it>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] feature request
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Omar Bettin
> <o(dot)bettin(at)informaticaindustriale(dot)it> wrote:
>> hello to everyone,
>> is a bit late for an italian, but after an long day debugging I had an
>> idea.
>> Why not introduce a special SQL command like
>> STORE WHERE [condition] FROM [table]
>> removing all data that meet the condition and storing them into another
>> database?
>> Then, if a query that needs the stored data is executed after such
>> command
>> the database joins the stored data into the result query.
>> This can keep the production database lightweight and fast.
>> Regards
>
> DELETE ... RETURNING is useful for this kind of thing, sometimes. And
> you could use it inside a function to go and do something with each
> row returned, though that might not be very graceful for large numbers
> of rows. The proposed syntax wouldn't actually work because it
> doesn't specify where to put the data.
>
> ...Robert
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-25 22:22:31 | Re: feature request |
Previous Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2010-02-25 22:12:46 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |