On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> 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.
I think triggers are useful. I see no reason to support rules. If the first version of our SQL/MED functionality is read-only, that's fine. But triggers are slow, clumsy, and expose implementation details to users, so those should be something that we provide as a way of making the database extensible, not something we use to build core functionality. -- 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
