David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 09:38:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:29:50PM -0700, Richard Broersma wrote:
> > > > This might be a premature question considering write-able CTEs
> > > > are not in core, but...
> > > >
> > > > I wondering if write-able CTE's will be the silver bullet that
> > > > will make rule based update-able views based multiple vertically
> > > > partitioned table robust. By robust, I mean to elimination the
> > > > update anomalies that can occur from the view point client side
> > > > optimistic locking where the virtual row appears to be
> > > > inconsistently updated.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand. When the concurrency issues in
> > > writeable CTEs get fixed, they could become a mechanism for doing
> > > what you describe, but I suspect there would be significant work
> > > involved in harnessing them to that task.
> > >
> > > They'll be pretty nice even without the automated view stuff,
> > > though :)
> >
> > If the user wants to submit it, fine, but neither Tom nor I are
> > excited about it.
>
> Could you clarify what you mean by, "it" in the sentence above? At
> the developer meeting, we put "Writeable CTEs" as one of the
> achievable 9.1 targets, and Tom encouraged me to see that the patch
> gets fixed up and resubmitted for the first reviewfest, i.e. the
> middle of next month.
Sorry, my mistake. I thought I was commenting on the psql regression
test suite. Please ignore.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
