On 9 December 2012 22:00, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: >> It's a shame though that pg_view_is_updatable() and >> pg_view_is_insertable() are not really useful for identifying >> potentially updatable views (e.g., consider an auto-updatable view on >> top of a trigger-updatable view). I'm left wondering if I >> misinterpreted the SQL standard's intentions when separating out the >> concepts of "updatable" and "trigger updatable". It seems like it >> would have been more useful to have "trigger updatable" imply >> "updatable". > > I wondered about that too, but concluded that they were separate after > noticing that the standard frequently writes things like "updatable or > trigger updatable". They wouldn't need to write that if the latter > implied the former. > > But in any case, those functions are expensive enough that I can't see > running them against every view in the DB anytime somebody hits tab. > I think just allowing tab-completion to include all views is probably > the best compromise.
I'm surprised to see that "updateable" and "trigger updateable" states aren't recorded in the catalog somewhere. ISTM a useful thing to be able to know about a view and not something we should be calculating on the fly. That has nothing much to do with tab completion, it just seems like a generally useful thing. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
