On 19 June 2013 18:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/19/13 11:50 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 19 June 2013 15:22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> We still don't have any support for this in psql, do we?
>>>
>>
>> No, but at least we now have an API that psql can use.
>>
>> There are still a number
On 19 June 2013 18:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/19/13 11:50 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 19 June 2013 15:22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> We still don't have any support for this in psql, do we?
>>>
>>
>> No, but at least we now have an API that psql can use.
>>
>> There are still a number
On 6/19/13 11:50 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 19 June 2013 15:22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> We still don't have any support for this in psql, do we?
>>
>
> No, but at least we now have an API that psql can use.
>
> There are still a number of questions about the best way to display it in
> psq
On 19 June 2013 15:22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> We still don't have any support for this in psql, do we?
>
No, but at least we now have an API that psql can use.
There are still a number of questions about the best way to display it in psql.
Should it be another column in \d+'s list of relation
On 6/13/13 1:37 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 12 June 2013 23:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Dean Rasheed writes:
>>> >> [ pg_relation_is_updatable.patch ]
>> >
>> > I've committed this with some modifications as mentioned. There is
>> > still room to debate exactly what
>> > information_schema.columns
On 12 June 2013 23:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> [ pg_relation_is_updatable.patch ]
>
> I've committed this with some modifications as mentioned. There is
> still room to debate exactly what
> information_schema.columns.is_updatable means --- we can now change that
> without an i
Dean Rasheed writes:
> [ pg_relation_is_updatable.patch ]
I've committed this with some modifications as mentioned. There is
still room to debate exactly what
information_schema.columns.is_updatable means --- we can now change that
without an initdb.
regards, tom lane
On 11 June 2013 22:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> Here's a more complete patch along those lines. It defines the
>> following pair of functions to test for updatability from SQL:
>
>> FUNCTION pg_catalog.pg_relation_is_updatable(reloid oid,
>>
Dean Rasheed writes:
> Here's a more complete patch along those lines. It defines the
> following pair of functions to test for updatability from SQL:
> FUNCTION pg_catalog.pg_relation_is_updatable(reloid oid,
>include_triggers boolean)
> RETURN
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Thanks. Arguably though, the API changes are something that should be
> sorted out in 9.3, but I'm not sure how much of an appetite there is
> for that, or whether it's too late.
>
I see, OK for the API changes on the functions, but I am not s
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 11 June 2013 01:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yes this is definitely material for 9.4. You should add this patch to the
> Thanks. Arguably though, the API changes are something that should be
> sorted out in 9.3,
I agree --- I'm planning to look at this in the next few
On 11 June 2013 01:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Sorry for my late reply.
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
>>
>> I called it updatable rather than "writable" or "read-only" because it
>> might perhaps be extended in the future with separate options for
>> "insertable" and
Sorry for my late reply.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I called it updatable rather than "writable" or "read-only" because it
> might perhaps be extended in the future with separate options for
> "insertable" and "deletable". It could also be extended to give
> column-leve
On 6 June 2013 08:09, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 5 June 2013 08:59, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> I'm still not happy with pg_view_is_updatable() et al. and the
>> information_schema views. I accept that the information_schema views
>> have to be the way they are because that's what's defined in the
>> st
On 5 June 2013 08:59, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I'm still not happy with pg_view_is_updatable() et al. and the
> information_schema views. I accept that the information_schema views
> have to be the way they are because that's what's defined in the
> standard, but as it stands, the distinction between
On 4 June 2013 23:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>> I was looking for a way in which the average psql user could learn
>> whether a view is updatable. I was expecting something in \d, \d+, \dv,
>> \dv+, or a NOTICE from CREATE VIEW.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I was looking for a way in which the average psql user could learn
> whether a view is updatable. I was expecting something in \d, \d+, \dv,
> \dv+, or a NOTICE from CREATE VIEW. So far, the only way appears to be
> through the informat
17 matches
Mail list logo
