Am Mittwoch, 30. August 2006 18:01 schrieb Tom Lane:
This is the first time I've actually looked at this patch, and I am
dismayed. viewUpdate.c looks like nothing so much as a large program
with a small program struggling to get out. What is all the stuff about
handling multiple base rels?
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Mittwoch, 30. August 2006 18:01 schrieb Tom Lane:
This is the first time I've actually looked at this patch, and I am
dismayed. viewUpdate.c looks like nothing so much as a large program
with a small program struggling to get out.
But later SQL
Am Donnerstag, 31. August 2006 15:55 schrieb Tom Lane:
I'm unclear as to why you've got DO INSTEAD NOTHING rules in there ---
You need to have one unconditional rule if you have a bunch of
conditional ones. The system does not see through the fact that the
conditional ones cover all
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Donnerstag, 31. August 2006 15:55 schrieb Tom Lane:
The proposed WITH CHECK OPTION implementation is unworkable for exactly
this reason --- it will give the wrong answers in the presence of
volatile functions such as nextval().
I'm not sure why
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:01:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bernd Helmle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ latest views patch ]
This is the first time I've actually looked at this patch, and I am
dismayed. viewUpdate.c looks like nothing so much as a large program
with a small program struggling
--On Donnerstag, August 24, 2006 11:02:43 -0500 Jaime Casanova
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually the code delete implicit rules based on a field added to
pg_rewrite but that catalog has a unique index on ev_class, rulename:
pg_rewrite_rel_rulename_index UNIQUE, btree (ev_class, rulename)
i
