--On Dienstag, Juli 25, 2006 18:29:39 -0500 Jaime Casanova
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/25/06, Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks,
please find attached an implementation for updatable views. Included are
support for pg_dump and information_schema, regression test and
documentation are missing. Also, there's currently no upgrade path for
older PostgreSQL versions and user defined rules on views.
i'm testing the functionality... seems good to me... i will work on
docs and regress if no one objects and bernd is not doing it...
------------
AFAICS, the view will not be updateable if there are casts in the
select list (seems fair to let that to future revisions), but i think
we must say it.
I thought about it a while and came to the conclusion that this
makes no sense. Casting in a view's target list involves
computation, function calls or constant values usually, so i
think there's no reason to add more complexity to the code.
------------
One thing to think of:
create table testing_serial (id serial primary key, name text);
CREATE TABLE
create view vtest_serial as select * from testing_serial;
CREATE VIEW
insert into vtest_serial values (default, 'name1');
psql:../view_test.sql:81: ERROR: null value in column "id" violates
not-null constraint
insert into vtest_serial(name) values ('name2');
psql:../view_test.sql:82: ERROR: null value in column "id" violates
not-null constraint
i still think that in updateable views we need to inherit the defaut
value of the base table, i still see this code commented in
rewriteHandler.c
Err, forgot to change the comment into a #if..#end block...
It's easy to add column defaults to a view if you need them, but
i'm not sure creating them automatically is the right way.
------------
psql:../view_test.sql:73: ERROR: cannot insert into a view
HINT: You need an unconditional ON INSERT DO INSTEAD rule.
BTW, we must change this message for something more like 'cannot
insert into a non updateable view'
-------------
+ /*
+ * I will do this only in case of relkind == RELKIND_VIEW.
+ * This is the last attempt to get a value for expr before we
+ * consider that expr must be NULL.
+ */
+ /* if (expr == NULL && rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_VIEW) */
+ /* { */
+ /* expr = (Node *)makeNode(SetToDefault); */
+ /* return expr; */
+ /* } */
+
if this functionality will be accepted this is the time to discuss it
otherwise drop this comment.
Yepp.
With this code we still can create a different default for the view
with ALTER TABLE ADD DEFAULT
Hmm, this is something i haven't considered yet....
------------
I have some code which drops the implicit created rules silently if
someone wants to have its own rule, but this needs some discussion, i
think.
+ #if 0
+ /*
+ * Implicit rules should be dropped automatically when someone
+ * wants to have its *own* rules on the view. is_implicit is set
+ * to NO_OPTION_EXCPLICIT in this case so we drop all implicit
+ * rules on the specified event type immediately.
+ *
+ * ???FIXME: do we want this behavior???
+ */
+
+ if ( ev_kind == NO_OPTION_EXPLICIT )
+ deleteImplicitRulesOnEvent(event_relation, event_type);
+ #endif
This is a must for compatibility with older versions. Otherwise we
will have views with user defined rules and implicit rules that will
have an unexpected behaviour.
Like the rule regression tests which fail exactly because of this
reason. However, i'm not sure if the backend is the right place
to do such implicit things. One idea is to provide a stored procedure
that drops implicit or user defined rules on views (this could be
implemented easily) and to instruct users to follow this upgrade
path (or to teach pg_dump to do so....).
------------
The patch covers the whole SQL92 functionality and doesn't create any
rules, if a given view is considered not to be compatible with SQL92
definitions.
I think is necessary to send some NOTICE when we can't create rules at
all or when we can't create one of them (insert rules are not always
created because they need all not-null without defaults columns to be
in the select list)
I think we could do it the other way, like the NOTICEs you get when you
create tables with primary keys. This would be more consistent then.
[...]
--
Thanks
Bernd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
