Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
>
> I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
> half-baked feature.
Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired feature.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, based on this feedback, I am adding COPY VIEW to the patches queue.
I think we have other things that demand our attention more than a
half-baked feature.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)--
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
Ka
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.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:36:25PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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
> > >
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.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
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
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 ..
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 ide
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
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,
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
we agreed on the view solution as people thought that this would be
better and less intrusive. I was also in favour of the syntax your
described below but people voted for the view solution which has been
fully implemented by this patch.
Btw, it seems to be stab
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >Right, but even when we have that, should we be able to dump a view just
> >like a real table?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Wouldn't it just be this? :
>
> COPY (SELECT * from viewname) TO ...
>
> I don't see why views should be special. Tables clearly should be
> because we can
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
This patch implements the COPY VIEW TODO item. Do we want to apply it
for 8.2?
I thought the consensus was that it would be better to do
COPY (SELECT ...) TO ...
rather than requiring the intermediate cre
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >This patch implements the COPY VIEW TODO item. Do we want to apply it
> >for 8.2?
> >
> >
> >
>
> I thought the consensus was that it would be better to do
>
> COPY (SELECT ...) TO ...
>
> rather than requiring the intermediate creati
Bruce Momjian wrote:
This patch implements the COPY VIEW TODO item. Do we want to apply it
for 8.2?
I thought the consensus was that it would be better to do
COPY (SELECT ...) TO ...
rather than requiring the intermediate creation of a view.
cheers
andrew
-
This patch implements the COPY VIEW TODO item. Do we want to apply it
for 8.2?
---
Karel Zak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> attached is a patch that implements "COPY view TO" feature.
>
> Karel
>
> Example:
>
> test=# CREAT
This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Karel Zak wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> attached is a patch that implements "COPY view TO" feature.
>
> Karel
>
> Exa
18 matches
Mail list logo
