Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> Rick Delaney wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> > >
> > > Be aware that 6.5.* might be unable to deal with the resulting size of
> > > the rewrite rule. And I'm not sure that I'll get TOAST ready for 7.0 to
> > > handle it.
> >
> > I'd have to take a good look at all the expressions again to know if I could do
> > this but I think I probably can. Only, with what I've started on I'm already
> > getting "rule plan string too big" errors. (What I've started on is just one
> > view that doesn't have all the expressions in it yet).
>
> That's what I meant with "might be unable...". You talked about a 50
> column view with complicated expressions, and that's surely too large for
> the current implementation.
>
> > So I will just get the same thing with nested views, no? That is how I ^^^^^^^^^^
^^
> > understand the "The Postgres Rule System" section of the manual and Tom Lane's
> > answer to my post.
>
> As the author of "The Postgres Rule System" I say yes, except that it
^^^^^^^^^
> requires some recursions in the rewriter. Thus, it will take a little
Sorry to be stupid but with my terribly phrased question I can't tell if you mean
"Yes, you are correct that you will still get 'rule plan string too big' errors
with nested views" or "Yes, nested views will work fine as I described despite
your erroneous interpretation of what you read (but you may have to fix the
recursion limit as I already said)". :-)
I'm 99% sure you mean the latter, now, after re-reading "The Postgres Rule
System" and your first reply to me. I guess the only reason I'm not 100% sure is
I don't understand where the 'rule plan string too big' limit comes from. Is it
in the storage of the view/rule (related to the 8K limit on row size)? I guess
that would make sense.
I suppose if I re-read enough times I'll get it.
Thanks again,
--Rick