On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 23:38, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> On the other hand, I don't really see any advantage to allowing rules >>>> on foreign tables - ever. Unless there's some reason we really need >>>> that, my gut feeling would be to rip it out and forget about it. >>> >>> views, updateable views? >> >> We already have those. They have their own relkind. Why would we >> need to duplicate that here? > > We need RULEs or INSTEAD OF TRIGGERs to support updatable foreign tables.
We do? Why can't the support for updating foreign tables be built-in rather than trigger-based? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
