Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ?

>     Stonebraker  was  wrong - and must have been bacause today we
>     want to get SQL92 compliant - and that  spec  didn't  existed
>     when  he  designed  our  rule  sytem.   The  rule  system  is
>     something we got from  the  good  old  v4.2  Postgres.   That
>     wasn't an SQL database, the querylanguage was POSTQUEL. So it
>     isn't surprising that the original rule system  spec's  don't
>     meet today's SQL needs.
> 
>     For  thing's like aggregates, distinct/grouping and the like,
>     we need to take a step backward and really do  some  kind  of
>     view  materialization  (create  a real execution path for the
>     view's definition). But don't force that to be done  whenever
>     a view is used - that doesn't make things better.

Thanks.  Now I understand why aggregates cause problems with rules.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026