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.
I think the simple argument is that you can SELECT from a table, why not
COPY from it. Of course copying INTO a view would not work. :-(

Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 14 of 55 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-patches @
postedSep 29, '05 at 9:44a
activeAug 24, '06 at 6:58p



site design / logo © 2019 Grokbase