From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Perrin <aperrin(at)socrates(dot)berkeley(dot)edu>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: all views in database broken at once |
Date: | 2001-03-25 12:57:14 |
Message-ID: | 200103251257.HAA24194@jupiter.jw.home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Perrin <aperrin(at)socrates(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> writes:
> > But I'm intrigued: what is it that causes this? Is it *my*
> > recreating the view on which the other views depend,
>
> Yes. You dropped and recreated the view --- the new version may have
> the same name but it's not the same OID, so it isn't the same object.
> And the other views refer to it by OID.
>
> The ultimate solution should have two parts, IMHO:
>
> 1. Dependency checking so that you *can't* drop a view that is still
> referenced. However this will not be complete --- it's not clear that
> we can detect references inside PL functions, for example.
PL's aren't too critical. A simple reconnect will whipe out
all SPI plans in PL functions and RI triggers, so they'll
notice the changes.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mathijs Brands | 2001-03-25 17:14:24 | Re: all views in database broken at once |
Previous Message | Mohamed ebrahim | 2001-03-25 06:50:31 | Help |