On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 01:41:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I _could_ make tables that "correspond"
> > to the views and put BEFORE INSERT triggers on them and
> > have the triggers insert into the views (or the equalivent),
> > but then the users would have to use the views for most
> > things and the "corresponding tables" when doing a COPY
> > or using the application's data import function.
> There's been previous discussion of allowing BEFORE INSERT triggers
> on views, so long as the triggers always return NULL to suppress
> the actual insertion attempt (ie, we'd move the "can't insert into
> view" test out of the rewriter and put it downstream of trigger firing
> in the executor).  So far no one's figured out how to make that idea
> work for UPDATE/DELETE, but maybe you could argue that even if it
> only worked for INSERT it'd be a useful feature.  It'd certainly solve
> the problem for COPY.

What about adding COPY support to rules? ISTM if you want to copy into a
view you probably want to insert into it as well, so why not use the
same mechanism? Presumably a COPY rule would also be faster than a
Jim Nasby                                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to