Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-30 Thread Bernd Helmle
--On Mittwoch, März 30, 2005 11:35:05 -0400 Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:30:13PM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote: Well, the patch is far away from being ready for -patches, but if you want to "preview" you can get our latest patch against HEAD at http://www.oops

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-30 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:30:13PM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote: > Well, the patch is far away from being ready for -patches, but if you want > to "preview" you can get our latest patch against HEAD at > > http://www.oopsware.de/pgsql_viewupdate.html Well, that description there says what the patc

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-29 Thread Bernd Helmle
--On Montag, März 28, 2005 09:51:52 +0100 Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] If you have everything else working, it might be worth submitting a patch for review? There may be other things required also. Best Regards, Simon Riggs Well, the patch is far away from being ready for -patches

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-28 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 23:12 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:42:18 +, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can see that I might want the view to have a different default value > > from that of the underlying table. I can see a reason to have multiple > > updateable

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-27 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:42:18 +, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can see that I might want the view to have a different default value > from that of the underlying table. I can see a reason to have multiple > updateable views on the same table, all with different columns, column > def

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-20 Thread Bernd Helmle
--On Samstag, März 19, 2005 11:05:39 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 f

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-19 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:05:39 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-19 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:42:18 +, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 01:10 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:31:26 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > ... but if we do INSERT INTO vfo

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-19 Thread Stephan Szabo
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

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
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 t

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-19 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 01:10 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:31:26 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > ... but if we do INSERT INTO vfoo(col2) values ('some_string) the > > rewriter > > > cann resolv the value for col1

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-18 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:31:26 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... but if we do INSERT INTO vfoo(col2) values ('some_string) the > rewriter > > cann resolv the value for col1. the reason is that views does not > > inherit the defaults of the

Re: [HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-18 Thread Tom Lane
Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... but if we do INSERT INTO vfoo(col2) values ('some_string) the rewriter > cann resolv the value for col1. the reason is that views does not > inherit the defaults of the parent table. That is the reason you add > the ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ADD/DROP

[HACKERS] rewriter in updateable views

2005-03-18 Thread Jaime Casanova
Hi, Bernd and myself are working in updateable views, one thing we find is that when we have something like: create table foo ( col1 serial, col2 text default 'default' ); create view vfoo as select * from foo; then we create the appropiate rules for allow INSERT /UPDATE /DELETE