> On 31 Jul 2015 10:15, "Tatsuo Ishii" <is...@postgresql.org> wrote: >> >> > I think it would be nice to have... but not to the point of working on >> > it myself. >> > >> > Might be worth an email to -general to see how many people have >> > immediate use for it. >> >> What I am thinking about is, >> >> 1) Implement certain class of updatable views allowed in SQL:1999 >> (UNION ALL, natural joins) >> >> 2) Anything beyond #1 (I have no idea for now) >> >> Let me see how people are interested in... >> > > How does the standard define it? Do they also follow the same MVCC > semantics as normal tables?
In my understanding there's no such concept like MVCC in the standard. Anyway in our implementation, we should keep the MVCC semantics of course. > I am concerned that we may end up losing read > performance for views if we implement this (unless I am missing something) Why do updatable views lose read performance? I thought the only performance concern will be in the update/delete/insert operations. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
