Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> >
> > why do we agree on a patch, implement it and reject it then?
> > would be easier to reject it before actually implementing it ...
> > it is quite hard to explain to a customer that something is rejected 
> > after approval - even if things are written properly ...
> >
> >  
> That's a good point and I understand the pain.
> Could we maybe do  this?: Take the patch as it is now, and if/when we 
> get the more general syntax we do a little magic under the hood to turn
>   COPY viewname TO
> into
>  COPY (select * from viewname) TO

We could.  But we would do it because we want that behavior on its own,
rather than doing it just to support a feature we added in the past.

The question is, if we were adding the query syntax _now_, would we want
to do views that way?  If so, we can add the patch and just fix it up
when we get the queries.

  Bruce Momjian

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to