On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:48:59AM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 23:45, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > Do we have any concrete idea for the built-in update feature? There > are no definitions in the SQL standard about interface for updates. > > So, I think RULE and TRIGGER are the best solution for now. In > addition, even if we support some kinds of built-in update feature, > I still think RULE and TRIGGER are useful, for example, logging > purpose.
Please start with TRIGGER, and we can then discuss the whether and possibly the how of RULEs later. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
