On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:48:59AM +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 23:45, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> We need RULEs or INSTEAD OF TRIGGERs to support updatable foreign
> >> tables.
> >
> > We do? Why can't the support for updating foreign tables be
> > built-in rather than trigger-based?
>
> Do we have any concrete idea for the built-in update feature? There
> are no definitions in the SQL standard about interface for updates.
>
> So, I think RULE and TRIGGER are the best solution for now. In
> addition, even if we support some kinds of built-in update feature,
> I still think RULE and TRIGGER are useful, for example, logging
> purpose.
Please start with TRIGGER, and we can then discuss the whether and
possibly the how of RULEs later.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
