From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Really bad/weird stuff with views over tables in 7.0.2 |
Date: | 2000-09-02 18:21:59 |
Message-ID: | 20000902112159.Z18862@fw.wintelcom.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [000902 11:06] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> > If you define a table and then create a select query rule over it
> > then drop the rule the table will be gone.
>
> > Another related problem is that let's say you have done this and
> > the table you've "hidden" with a view is rather large and has
> > indexes then postgresql will seriously choke on trying to
> > vacuum and/or vacuum analyze the table which is really a view!
>
> Looks OK from here ... how about a reproducible example?
Ok, typo on my part, if you type "DROP VIEW foo;" that nukes the rule and
the table behind it. Is that the expected behavior? I'll try to
figure out a way to demonstrate the problem I thought I was having
with data in both tables later right now I desperately need sleep. :)
thanks,
-Alfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-09-02 19:06:14 | Isn't non-TEST_AND_SET code long dead? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-09-02 18:06:38 | Re: Really bad/weird stuff with views over tables in 7.0.2 |