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.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
