On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 23:38, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, I don't really see any advantage to allowing rules
>>>> on foreign tables - ever. Unless there's some reason we really need
>>>> that, my gut feeling would be to rip it out and forget about it.
>>>
>>> views, updateable views?
>>
>> We already have those. They have their own relkind. Why would we
>> need to duplicate that here?
>
> 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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
