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
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 |