From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_views.definition |
Date: | 2002-07-16 16:05:25 |
Message-ID: | 13066.1026835525@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> We actually reverse it on the fly:
> We do, but as soon as you break the view by dropping an underlying
> object it fails to reconstruct. So having the original view definition
> at hand could be useful for some ALTER VIEW RECOMPILE command.
Note that the assumptions underlying this discussion have changed in
CVS tip: you can't break a view by dropping underlying objects.
regression=# create table foo(f1 int, f2 text);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# create view bar as select * from foo;
CREATE VIEW
regression=# drop table foo;
NOTICE: rule _RETURN on view bar depends on table foo
NOTICE: view bar depends on rule _RETURN on view bar
ERROR: Cannot drop table foo because other objects depend on it
Use DROP ... CASCADE to drop the dependent objects too
or
regression=# drop table foo cascade;
NOTICE: Drop cascades to rule _RETURN on view bar
NOTICE: Drop cascades to view bar
DROP TABLE
-- bar is now gone
Auto reconstruction of a view based on its original textual definition
is still potentially interesting, but I submit that it won't necessarily
always give the right answer.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-07-16 16:07:10 | Re: [SQL] line datatype |
Previous Message | Tim Hart | 2002-07-16 16:00:34 | Re: [SQL] line datatype |