Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:19:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >>I don't see why views should be special. Tables clearly should be > > > >>because we can open them directly. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >Ah, I didn't think of that. Good idea. So we don't need this patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 ... > > > > Agreed. The problem with this patch is that originally we just wanted > > views, and later the idea of putting a query in there was agreed on, so > > the feature request has changed over time. > > BTW, one argument for allowing dumping out of views is that it means > they'd act more like tables; you just COPY viewname TO file. > > Also, if copy from select doesn't make it into 8.2, then we should > absolutely put this patch in, so that users at least have something they > can use.
OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
