Re: pg_views.definition

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_views.definition
Date: 2002-07-17 09:36:52
Message-ID: 1026898612.5748.17.camel@taru.tm.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 09:56, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
> > The problem is that you would still need to keep a copy of your view
> > around to recreate it if you wanted to drop and recreate a table it
> > depends on. I really like the idea about keeping the original view
> > source handy in the system catalogs.
>
> This has been the case all the time. I only see an attempt to
> make this impossible with the new dependency system. If I *must*
> specify CASCADE to drop an object, my view depends on, my view
> will be gone. If I don't CASCADE, I cannot drop the object.
>
> So there is no way left to break the view temporarily (expert
> mode here, I know what I do so please let me)

I guess the real expert could manipulate pg_depends ;)

> and fix it later by just reparsing the views definition.

---------
Hannu

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2002-07-17 10:15:03 Re: DROP COLUMN
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2002-07-17 09:33:37 Re: pg_views.definition