On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:19:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >>I don't see why views should be special. Tables clearly should be
> > >>because we can open them directly.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Ah, I didn't think of that. Good idea. So we don't need this patch?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > why do we agree on a patch, implement it and reject it then?
> > would be easier to reject it before actually implementing it ...
> > it is quite hard to explain to a customer that something is rejected
> > after approval - even if things are written properly ...
>
> Agreed. The problem with this patch is that originally we just wanted
> views, and later the idea of putting a query in there was agreed on, so
> the feature request has changed over time.
BTW, one argument for allowing dumping out of views is that it means
they'd act more like tables; you just COPY viewname TO file.
Also, if copy from select doesn't make it into 8.2, then we should
absolutely put this patch in, so that users at least have something they
can use.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461