Horton

Re: SQL/MED - core functionality

Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Shigeru HANADA <hanada@metrosystems.co.jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-12-14T15:48:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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