Re: Updateable views was:(Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for SYNONYMS)

Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 3/9/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>>> Eh?  I thought that it was just syntatic sugar that was missing.   I've
>>> built lots of updatable views manually; I don't see what's difficult about
>>> it.
>> I think you'll find that corner cases like inserts involving nextval()
>> don't work real well with a rule-based updatable view.  But perhaps I'm
>> just scarred by the many complaints we've had about rules.  With a plain
>> unconditional DO INSTEAD rule it might be OK ...

> the last time i talk with Bernd Helmle, he was preparing the code to
> send to patches for discussion... that was two months ago...
> 
> the current code had problems with casts and i think with domains too...
> 
> i will contact with Bernd to know if he did some more work, if not i
> can send to patches the latest path he sent me...

I'd certainly be interested in having auto-updatable views in 8.2 - even 
if it was only for the simplest of cases. If I can be of any help 
testing etc. let me know.

--   Richard Huxton  Archonet Ltd