Peter Eisentraut <peter@pathwaynet.com> writes:
>> The way Jan explained it to me, a view *is* a table that happens to
>> have an "on select do instead" rule attached to it. If the table
>> has data in it (which it normally wouldn't) you can't see that data
>> anyway because of the select rule.
> Does anyone else see a problem with this? This sort of approach almost
> prevents views with distinct, union, order by, etc. from ever being
> implemented.
What makes you think that? We do have work to do before some of those
things will work, but I don't think it has anything to do with whether
there is an empty table underlying a view...
regards, tom lane