Simon Riggs writes:
> On 9 December 2012 22:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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 co
On 9 December 2012 22:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed 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'
On 9 December 2012 22:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed 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'
Dean Rasheed 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 st
On 9 December 2012 16:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> One observation: There doesn't appear to be any tab-completion for view
>> names after DML statement keywords in psql. Might we want to add this?
>
> Well, there is, but it only knows about INSTEAD OF trigger cases.
> I'm tempted
Thom Brown writes:
> One observation: There doesn't appear to be any tab-completion for view
> names after DML statement keywords in psql. Might we want to add this?
Well, there is, but it only knows about INSTEAD OF trigger cases.
I'm tempted to suggest that Query_for_list_of_insertables and f
On 8 December 2012 23:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
> > Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
>
> Applied after a fair amount of hacking.
>
One observation: There doesn't appear to be any tab-completion for view
names after DML statement keywords in psql. Might we want to a
On 8 December 2012 23:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
>
> Applied after a fair amount of hacking.
>
Awesome! Thank you very much.
Regards,
Dean
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to y
Dean Rasheed writes:
> Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
Applied after a fair amount of hacking.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/p
On 8 December 2012 15:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Continuing to work on this ... I found multiple things I didn't like
> about the permission-field update code. Attached are some heavily
> commented extracts from the code as I've changed it. Does anybody
> object to either the code or the objectives g
Continuing to work on this ... I found multiple things I didn't like
about the permission-field update code. Attached are some heavily
commented extracts from the code as I've changed it. Does anybody
object to either the code or the objectives given in the comments?
rega
[ finally getting back to this patch, after many distractions ]
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 8 November 2012 21:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the most reasonable backwards-compatibility argument is that we
>> shouldn't change the behavior if there are either INSTEAD rules or
>> INSTEAD triggers.
On 8 November 2012 21:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> create table bar(a int);
>> create view bar_v as select * from bar;
>> create rule bar_r as on insert to bar_v where new.a < 0 do instead nothing;
>> insert into bar_v values(-1),(1);
>> select * from bar_v;
>> a
>> ---
>> 1
>>
Dean Rasheed writes:
> create table bar(a int);
> create view bar_v as select * from bar;
> create rule bar_r as on insert to bar_v where new.a < 0 do instead nothing;
> insert into bar_v values(-1),(1);
> select * from bar_v;
> a
> ---
> 1
> (1 row)
> Having that put both -1 and 1 into bar see
On 8 November 2012 19:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> On 8 November 2012 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I believe that the right way to think about the auto-update
>>> transformation is that it should act like a supplied-by-default
>>> unconditional INSTEAD rule.
>
>> But if you treat
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 8 November 2012 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I believe that the right way to think about the auto-update
>> transformation is that it should act like a supplied-by-default
>> unconditional INSTEAD rule.
> But if you treat the auto-update transformation as a
> supplied-by-d
On 8 November 2012 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> If we did nothing here then it would go on to either fire any INSTEAD
>> OF triggers or raise an error if there aren't any. The problem with
>> that is that it makes trigger-updatable views and auto-updatable views
>> inconsisten
Dean Rasheed writes:
> If we did nothing here then it would go on to either fire any INSTEAD
> OF triggers or raise an error if there aren't any. The problem with
> that is that it makes trigger-updatable views and auto-updatable views
> inconsistent in their behaviour with qualified INSTEAD rules
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 8 November 2012 14:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> Oh wait, that's nonsense (not enough caffeine). The rewrite code needs
>> to know whether there are INSTEAD OF triggers before it decides
>> whether it's going to substitute the base relation. The fundamental
>> problem is th
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 11:33:47AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > There are three different WITH CHECK OPTION options:
>
> > WITH CHECK OPTION
> > WITH CASCADED CHECK OPTION
> > WITH LOCAL CHECK OPTION
>
> No, there are four: the fourth case being if you leave off the phrase
>
David Fetter writes:
> There are three different WITH CHECK OPTION options:
> WITH CHECK OPTION
> WITH CASCADED CHECK OPTION
> WITH LOCAL CHECK OPTION
No, there are four: the fourth case being if you leave off the phrase
altogether. That's the only case we accept, and it corresponds to the
patc
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:55:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:04:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Should we be doing something
> >> about such cases, or is playing dumb correct?
>
> > The SQL standard handles deciding the behavior based on whether
On 8 November 2012 14:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 8 November 2012 08:33, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> OK, yes I think we do need to be throwing the error at runtime rather
>> than at plan time. That's pretty easy if we just keep the current
>> error message...
>
> Oh wait, that's nonsense (not enough
On 8 November 2012 08:33, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> OK, yes I think we do need to be throwing the error at runtime rather
> than at plan time. That's pretty easy if we just keep the current
> error message...
Oh wait, that's nonsense (not enough caffeine). The rewrite code needs
to know whether there
On 8 November 2012 03:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> On 7 November 2012 22:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This seems to me to be dangerous and unintuitive, not to mention
>>> underdocumented. I think it would be better to just not do anything if
>>> there is any INSTEAD rule, period.
>
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 7 November 2012 22:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems to me to be dangerous and unintuitive, not to mention
>> underdocumented. I think it would be better to just not do anything if
>> there is any INSTEAD rule, period.
> Is this any more dangerous than what already hap
On 7 November 2012 22:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> Thanks for looking at this.
>> Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
>
> I'm starting to look at this patch now. I don't understand the intended
> interaction with qualified INSTEAD rules. The code looks like
>
> +
David Fetter writes:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:04:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should we be doing something
>> about such cases, or is playing dumb correct?
> The SQL standard handles deciding the behavior based on whether WITH
> CHECK OPTION is included in the view DDL. See the section 2 o
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:04:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
> > Thanks for looking at this.
> > Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
>
> I'm starting to look at this patch now. I don't understand the intended
> interaction with qualified INSTEAD rules. The code looks
Dean Rasheed writes:
> Thanks for looking at this.
> Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
I'm starting to look at this patch now. I don't understand the intended
interaction with qualified INSTEAD rules. The code looks like
+ if (!instead && rt_entry_relation->rd_rel->relk
Thanks for looking at this.
Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
On 11 October 2012 02:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Compiler warning needs to be fixed:
>
> rewriteHandler.c: In function 'RewriteQuery':
> rewriteHandler.c:2153:29: error: 'view_rte' may be used uninitialized in this
> func
Compiler warning needs to be fixed:
rewriteHandler.c: In function 'RewriteQuery':
rewriteHandler.c:2153:29: error: 'view_rte' may be used uninitialized in this
function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
rewriteHandler.c:2015:17: note: 'view_rte' was declared here
Duplicate OIDs need to be adjusted:
On 24 September 2012 12:10, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:33 AM Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 18 September 2012 14:23, Amit kapila wrote:
>> > Please find the review of the patch.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the review. Attached is an updated patch, and I've include
>> some respon
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:33 AM Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 14:23, Amit kapila wrote:
> > Please find the review of the patch.
> >
>
> Thanks for the review. Attached is an updated patch, and I've include
> some responses to specific review comments below.
I have verified
On 18 September 2012 14:23, Amit kapila wrote:
> Please find the review of the patch.
>
Thanks for the review. Attached is an updated patch, and I've include
some responses to specific review comments below.
> Extra test cases that can be added to regression suite are as below:
>
> 1. where cla
On 31 August 2012 07:59, Dean Rasheed
wrote:
> On 30 August 2012 20:05, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Dean Rasheed
>> wrote:
> Here's an updated patch for the base feature (without support for
> security barrier views) with updated docs and regression tests.
Please
36 matches
Mail list logo
