Re: [9.3] Automatically updatable views vs writable foreign tables
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [9.3] Automatically updatable views vs writable foreign tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4903.1371082280@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [9.3] Automatically updatable views vs writable foreign tables (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [9.3] Automatically updatable views vs writable foreign tables
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes: > The more I read the spec, the less sense it seems to make, and each > time I read it, I seem to reach a different conclusion. > On my latest reading, I've almost convinced myself that "updatable" is > meant to imply support for all 3 operations (INSERT, UPDATE and > DELETE), at least in the absence of transient tables. The descriptions > of all 3 seem to require the table to be updatable. Still, they do admit the possibility of insertable_into being different from is_updatable. So I'm pretty happy with what we've got, at least on the relation level. Columns seem a bit more debatable; though I continue to think that an is_updatable column in a not-is_updatable table isn't contemplated by the spec. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: