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. +
