On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:31:26 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why do you not define the problem as "when we decide a view is
> >> updateable and create the needed rules for it, also create default
> >> values for it by copying up from the base tables"?
> >>
> > Well, that was our first thought. but what if the default value is
> > changed in the base table?
>
> So? Being able to have a different default for the view could be
> construed as a feature, not a bug.
Except that if the view got its default by copying the base table default,
(or not copying it if there isn't one) it should presumably mirror the
base table's current default. However, if the view's default was
explicitly set, it should probably ignore base table default changes.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
