Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]
Date
Msg-id 20121107224432.GC18573@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:04:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> > Thanks for looking at this.
> > Attached is a rebased patch using new OIDs.
> 
> I'm starting to look at this patch now.  I don't understand the intended
> interaction with qualified INSTEAD rules.  The code looks like
> 
> +         if (!instead && rt_entry_relation->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_VIEW)
> +         {
> +             Query  *query = qual_product ? qual_product : parsetree;
> +             Query  *newquery = rewriteTargetView(query, rt_entry_relation);
> 
> which has the effect that if there's a qualified INSTEAD rule, we'll
> apply the substitution transformation to the
> modified-by-addition-of-negated-qual query (ie, qual_product).
> This seems to me to be dangerous and unintuitive, not to mention
> underdocumented.  I think it would be better to just not do anything if
> there is any INSTEAD rule, period.  (I don't see any problem with DO
> ALSO rules, though, since they don't affect the behavior of the original
> query.)
> 
> Also, I didn't see anything in the thread concerning the behavior with
> selective views.  If we have say
> 
> CREATE VIEW v AS SELECT id, data FROM t WHERE id > 1000;
> 
> and we do
> 
> INSERT INTO v VALUES(1, 'foo');
> 
> the row will be inserted but will then be invisible through the view.
> Is that okay?  I can't find anything in the SQL standard that says it
> isn't, but it seems pretty weird.  A related example is
> 
> UPDATE v SET id = 0 WHERE id = 10000;
> 
> which has the effect of making the row disappear from the view, which is
> not what you'd expect an UPDATE to do.  Should we be doing something
> about such cases, or is playing dumb correct?

The SQL standard handles deciding the behavior based on whether WITH
CHECK OPTION is included in the view DDL.  See the section 2 of the
SQL standard (Foundation) for details.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch]
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: New log_destination 'fifo'