From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)pathwaynet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? |
Date: | 1999-07-12 18:49:05 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.9907121443580.4521-100000@saxony.pathwaynet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ryan Bradetich <rbrad(at)hpb50023(dot)boi(dot)hp(dot)com> writes:
> > psql declares the the type to be view? if the relkind is a relation
> > and the relhasrules = true in pg_class for that entry. I will pull
> > the latest source and see if I can come up with a better way for
> > determining the type tomorrow, if someone else doesn't beat me to it
>
> The way Jan explained it to me, a view *is* a table that happens to
> have an "on select do instead" rule attached to it. If the table
> has data in it (which it normally wouldn't) you can't see that data
> anyway because of the select rule.
Does anyone else see a problem with this? This sort of approach almost
prevents views with distinct, union, order by, etc. from ever being
implemented.
I don't know what other people use their views for but I use them to store
complicated queries. So, in essence it would suffice to store the text of
the query with a view rather than faking tables for it, thus confusing all
sorts of utility programs.
Then again, I'd be interested to know what to developers' idea of normal
usage of a view is.
--
Peter Eisentraut
PathWay Computing, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Uncle George | 1999-07-12 19:27:29 | Postgres Alpha Port On RH6.0 |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-07-12 16:10:52 | Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? |