Sarah Officer wrote:
> Oh dear. The problem I mentioned here occured when I just based my
> view on one select statement. When I add the union clause, I am
> informed that views can't handle unions. Is there a standard
> work-around? I'm afraid I was planning a couple of other views
> which look at this one.
No, views are a problem at the moment. One of the biggest problems is
that the plan to execute a view is stored in a database table and there
is a limit of 8192 bytes per tuple. This is quite quickly exceeded by the
size of the plan. Jan Wieck has implemented a compressed text type, which
will allow the system to store larger views in the view table and is
working on a mechanism to store fields that still don't fit in a
secondary table. The compressed data type will be in the next version of
postgres (Feb-Mar 2000), whether the secondary tables make it is a bit
touch and go.
Views with unions is on the todo list, but i don't know whether that is
going to happen by the next version.
Adriaan
