Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.10.9907121443580.4521-100000@saxony.pathwaynet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ?
Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > Ryan Bradetich <rbrad@hpb50023.boi.hp.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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: