Well, those are two high-quality answers, and I appreciate them. Not
really the news I was hoping for, of course, though I suppose it's a
small consolation that the problem is not in the model, but the
implementation. That leaves the possibility open in principle, at
least, though the technical d
David Rowley writes:
> On 24 September 2015 at 13:32, Raymond Brinzer
> wrote:
>> Any thoughts on this would be welcome.
> The problem is that an UPDATE/DELETE could take place which causes the
> foreign key to be violated and you may try and perform an UPDATE to the
> view before the foreign ke
On 24 September 2015 at 13:32, Raymond Brinzer
wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on this would be welcome. This is something which I
> would personally find exceptionally valuable; if there are problems
> with the idea, I'd like to know. As well, if my description isn't
> clear enough I'd be happy to exp
Greetings.
I love PostgreSQL's support of automatically updatable views, limited
though it is. I would like to point out what I believe is another
case where views can be updated, without ambiguity. I'm going to call
this a "foreign key view". For example, given a view V which joins a
table C w