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 w
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Josh Berkus 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 (much)
earlier desi
> "Josh" == Josh Berkus 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 t
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 multip
* Kevin Grittner (kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov) wrote:
> >Stephen Frost 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 d
>Stephen Frost 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 working on a p
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 y
2009/10/5 Dan Colish :
> 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 usi
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 y
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.
> >
> > Sear
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 ru
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:32:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout 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?
>
> Interestin
Martijn van Oosterhout 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);
>> insert into
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
> "Greg" == "Greg Sabino Mullane" 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 it'
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 D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> At the moment, user-accessible RULEs have, as far as I know,
> just two sane uses:
>
--On 4. Oktober 2009 21:37:45 -0400 Robert Haas
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:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg01746.php
Bu
--On 5. Oktober 2009 09:51:29 +0300 Peter Eisentraut
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 of "substitution
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 forw
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.
Se
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
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 precisely because o
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 hearin
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:54 PM, 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 the
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
> > >experim
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
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:42 PM, David Fetter 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 I could
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 wa
On Sun, October 4, 2009 1:48 pm, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2009/10/4 David Fetter :
>> 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
* 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.
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 04:07:40PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM, David Fetter 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
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 disli
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 UUI
2009/10/4 David Fetter :
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:48:15PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2009/10/4 David Fetter :
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > At the moment, user-accessible RULEs have, as far as I know, just two
>> > sane uses:
>> >
>> > * Writing to VIEWs
>> > * Routing writes to partitions
>>
>> so
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM, David Fetter 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 agree that
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 e
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.
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:48:15PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2009/10/4 David Fetter :
> > 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.
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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresq
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 simpl
> 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 maj
2009/10/4 David Fetter :
> 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.
regards
Pavel St
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, and
43 matches
Mail list logo
