On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:54:56PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David E. Wheeler wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Fetter wrote: > > > > >It's less about like or dislike and more about facing up to the > > >reality that we've got a major legacy foot-gun left over from the > > >experimentation of the Berkeley days. > > > > I think you're going to need to be a bit more concrete than that. In > > what way is it a foot-gun? What examples can you provide? What, > > exactly, are the issues? > > While I don't agree with David Fetter's premise, I think rehashing how > we handle VIEWs would be a good step towards updatable views. Right > now, the implementation of that is stalled precisely because of the rule > system. >
I am not sure where that view implemenation is, but I doubt its stalled because of the rule system. You can definitely create updatable views using rules. However, I'm not sure updatable views are a good thing in most scenarios. I see way too much damage as a likely outcome. Rules are one of the great generative features of postgres and I see no reason to cut them. Features should not be limited just because they can be used incorrectly, since they can also be used in other correct/interesting ways we have yet to think up. -- --Dan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers