Vik Fearing <v...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > On 02/04/2016 01:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm looking into fixing the problem reported here: >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1445a624-d09f-4b51-9c41-46ba1e2d6...@neveragain.de >> namely that if we split a view into a table + rule (because of circular >> dependencies), parallel pg_restore fails to ensure that it creates any >> triggers for the view only after creating the rule. If it tries to >> create the triggers first, the backend may barf because they're the wrong >> type of triggers for a plain table.
> No objections to this, but my "better idea" is simply to allow INSTEAD > OF triggers on tables like discussed last year. > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14c6fe168a9-1012-10...@webprd-a87.mail.aol.com That sounds like a new feature, and not something we'd want to backpatch. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers