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 for automated
> updating, then?
>
> I don't think that removing a major feature, one which some users have
> written applications around, is even feasible.
>
> What would be the benefit of this radical proposal?
>
> --Josh Berkus
>
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?
--
--Dan
