From: | "Roderick A(dot) Anderson" <raanders(at)tincan(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | dev(at)archonet(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Update through views? |
Date: | 2001-03-08 19:29:53 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.10103081125410.24542-100000@tincan.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> I can guarantee that we won't ever support these things on an arbitrary
> view; there'll always be a need for hand-made rules in cases where the
> system is too dumb to figure out a plausible rule for updating a view,
> but the programmer knows what he wants to have happen.
As Richard Huxton pointed out. I was taking a very simplistic view of
views. :-)
>
> The SQL spec calls out a set of conditions for a view being "updatable",
> which essentially means that the view is simple enough that a DBMS
> should be able to derive update rules for it automatically. At some
> point we'll probably try to build machinery to implement automatic rule
> creation for those sorts of views.
Sounds good but given my now enlightened view I'd probably not use it.
> But it'll always be possible to write your own rules if you don't like
> the automatic ones or the view is too complex for automatic rule
> creation.
As someone stated (I think Larry Wall) if programming were easy it would
take something as complicated as a human to do it.
Thanks for the information.
Rod
--
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-08 20:13:54 | Re: SQL Question |
Previous Message | Matthew | 2001-03-08 18:36:22 | SQL Question |