sfr...@snowman.net (Stephen Frost) writes:
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 04:07:40PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The radical proposal was the RULE system. It's been tested now,
and it's pretty much failed.
You still haven't explained what actual
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
I am not sure where that view implemenation is, but I doubt its
stalled because of the rule system.
It is.
You can definitely create updatable views using rules.
Sure you can, but they won't work in various significant corner cases.
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 20:54 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
While I don't agree with David Fetter's premise, I think rehashing how
we handle VIEWs would be a good step towards updatable views. Right
now, the implementation of that is stalled precisely because of the rule
system.
The way forward
--On 5. Oktober 2009 09:51:29 +0300 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
wrote:
The way forward with updatable views is triggers on views. I was going
to write something about that in the future. I haven't worked out all
the details.
In the mentioned discussion there was already the notion
--On 4. Oktober 2009 21:37:45 -0400 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is the last I remember hearing of it, which seems to suggest that
only a week's worth of work (maybe a bit more for those of us who are
not Tom Lane) is needed:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
At the moment, user-accessible RULEs have, as far as I know,
just two sane uses:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Could this be done with a trigger? Yes, but on the plus rules side:
* It's faster
* It's easier to write
* It's immediately viewable as to what is going on with a \d mytable
* Dropping it won't leave an unused function around
* We can still do ALTER TABLE DISABLE
Greg == Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
They're mostly a foot-gun.
Greg Lots of things in Postgres could be considered potential foot
Greg guns. Frankly, I don't think rules are even near the top of
Greg such a list. Can you give examples of rule foot guns?
There are so many
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
Here are a couple of the more common ones:
1) any reference in an insert rule to NEW.col where col has a volatile
default, or the expression in the insert statement was volatile, or
the expression's value is changed by the
Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org writes:
ISTM it may be possible to use the new WITH construct here. So the rule
evaluation for the following
create table t (a integer);
create table t_log (a integer);
create rule t_ins AS ON insert TO t do also insert into t_log values (NEW.a);
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:32:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org writes:
WITH NEW AS (
insert into t values (floor(random()*1000)::integer);
RETURNING *
)
insert into t_log values (NEW.a);
Would this not have the required semantics?
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:18AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
I am not sure where that view implemenation is, but I doubt its
stalled because of the rule system.
It is.
You can definitely create updatable views using rules.
Dan Colish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:18AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
You can definitely create updatable views using rules.
Sure you can, but they won't work in various significant corner cases.
Search the
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:28:13AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Dan Colish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:18AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
You can definitely create updatable views using rules.
Sure you can, but they
2009/10/5 Dan Colish d...@unencrypted.org:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:28:13AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Dan Colish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:18AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
You can definitely create updatable views
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:28:13AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Dan Colish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:50:18AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:24 -0700, Dan Colish wrote:
You can definitely create updatable views using rules.
Sure you can, but they
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Do we have a patch which implements the necessary mechanics to
replace RULEs, even for the specific situations you list? Until
then, I don't think there's much to discuss.
I thought that until we had discussion and consensus it was premature
to start
* Kevin Grittner (kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Do we have a patch which implements the necessary mechanics to
replace RULEs, even for the specific situations you list? Until
then, I don't think there's much to discuss.
I thought that until
Andrew,
1) any reference in an insert rule to NEW.col where col has a volatile
default, or the expression in the insert statement was volatile, or
the expression's value is changed by the insert, will do the wrong
thing:
Is this different from triggers?
2) any rule with multiple
Josh == Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
1) any reference in an insert rule to NEW.col where col has a volatile
default, or the expression in the insert statement was volatile, or
the expression's value is changed by the insert, will do the wrong
thing:
Josh Is this different from
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
So while rules are hard to use and easy to mess up, so are triggers. So
while an (arguable) problem is being pointed out, no real solution is
being proposed.
If you want to implement updatable views I still stand by my
Folks,
At the moment, user-accessible RULEs have, as far as I know, just two
sane uses:
* Writing to VIEWs
* Routing writes to partitions
And the second is pretty thin, given the performance issues for
numbers of partitions over 2.
What say we see about addressing those problems separately,
2009/10/4 David Fetter da...@fetter.org:
Folks,
At the moment, user-accessible RULEs have, as far as I know, just two
sane uses:
* Writing to VIEWs
* Routing writes to partitions
somebody use it as instead triggers. And I am sure, so there are
people, who use it for writable views.
There are already patches to deal with the first, at least for the
kinds of VIEWs where this can be deduced automatically, and people are
starting to take on the second.
How would we deal with VIEWs which weren't simple enough for automated
updating, then?
I don't think that removing a major
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 11:42:45AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
There are already patches to deal with the first, at least for the
kinds of VIEWs where this can be deduced automatically, and people are
starting to take on the second.
How would we deal with VIEWs which weren't simple enough
Dan Colish wrote:
When you speak of writing to a view, what do you mean exactly? Are we saying
refresh a view or update the parent tables of a view?
He means INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE operations on the view.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:48:15PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/4 David Fetter da...@fetter.org:
Folks,
At the moment, user-accessible RULEs have, as far as I know, just two
sane uses:
* Writing to VIEWs
* Routing writes to partitions
somebody use it as instead triggers.
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 03:15:10PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Dan Colish wrote:
When you speak of writing to a view, what do you mean exactly? Are we saying
refresh a view or update the parent tables of a view?
He means INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE operations on the view.
cheers
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 11:42:45AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
There are already patches to deal with the first, at least for the
kinds of VIEWs where this can be deduced automatically, and people
are starting to take on the second.
How would we deal with VIEWs which weren't simple enough
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
What would be the benefit of this radical proposal?
The radical proposal was the RULE system. It's been tested now, and
it's pretty much failed.
You still haven't explained what actual benefit we'd get out of doing this.
I
2009/10/4 David Fetter da...@fetter.org:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:48:15PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/4 David Fetter da...@fetter.org:
Folks,
At the moment, user-accessible RULEs have, as far as I know, just two
sane uses:
* Writing to VIEWs
* Routing writes to partitions
David,
The radical proposal was the RULE system. It's been tested now, and
it's pretty much failed.
I don't think you've demonstrated that. I know *you* don't like RULEs,
but others do. I could propose that UUIDs are a bankrupt concept (which
I believe) and therefore we should drop the UUID
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 01:25:31PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
David,
The radical proposal was the RULE system. It's been tested now,
and it's pretty much failed.
I don't think you've demonstrated that. I know *you* don't like
RULEs, but others do.
It's less about like or dislike and
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 04:07:40PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
What would be the benefit of this radical proposal?
The radical proposal was the RULE system. It's been tested now,
and it's pretty much failed.
You still
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 04:07:40PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The radical proposal was the RULE system. It's been tested now,
and it's pretty much failed.
You still haven't explained what actual benefit we'd get out of
doing this.
Removing
On Sun, October 4, 2009 1:48 pm, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2009/10/4 David Fetter da...@fetter.org:
Folks,
At the moment, user-accessible RULEs have, as far as I know, just two
sane uses:
* Writing to VIEWs
* Routing writes to partitions
somebody use it as instead triggers. And I am sure, so
On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Fetter wrote:
It's less about like or dislike and more about facing up to the
reality that we've got a major legacy foot-gun left over from the
experimentation of the Berkeley days.
I think you're going to need to be a bit more concrete than that. In
what
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:42 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
I agree that rules, except for SELECT rules, don't seem to be very
useful. Perhaps others have found them so, but I have found
triggers to be a better fit for everything that I ever want to do.
Every time I think, hmm, maybe
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Fetter wrote:
It's less about like or dislike and more about facing up to the
reality that we've got a major legacy foot-gun left over from the
experimentation of the Berkeley days.
I think you're going to need to be a bit more
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:54:56PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Fetter wrote:
It's less about like or dislike and more about facing up to the
reality that we've got a major legacy foot-gun left over from the
experimentation of
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Oct 4, 2009, at 1:57 PM, David Fetter wrote:
It's less about like or dislike and more about facing up to the
reality that we've got a major legacy foot-gun left over from the
Robert Haas escribió:
While I don't agree with David Fetter's premise, I think rehashing how
we handle VIEWs would be a good step towards updatable views. Right
now, the implementation of that is stalled precisely because of the rule
system.
This is the last I remember hearing of it,
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
While I don't agree with David Fetter's premise, I think rehashing how
we handle VIEWs would be a good step towards updatable views. Right
now, the implementation of that is stalled
43 matches
Mail list logo
