From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] type coerce problem with lztext |
Date: | 2000-02-27 22:16:24 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000227141624.00fa8cb0@mail.pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 05:02 PM 2/27/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>My guess is that Don's problems are stemming from rules that reference
>tables that have many more columns than are being output. Citations
>of the otherwise-unreferenced columns in the rtable could add a lot of
>bulk that wasn't there before. But it doesn't look to me like the size
>of a simple "SELECT *" rule string has grown all that much.
I'll buy that. A couple of the views I was having problems with were
indeed returning a few columns from a view joining a couple of tables, with
in two cases a "where" clause with a further subselect returning
a single column (used on the right of an "="). I might add that the
problem was made worse by the fact that the view itself wasn't as
complex earlier - I updated my PG7.0 snapshot to include Thomas'
last changes at roughly same time I updated the web toolkit.
I picked out one doing just a "select *" as an example because I
felt it would kind of drive the point home that simple views on
relatively small tables were failing...
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-27 22:39:07 | A further thought on rule string size |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-27 22:02:02 | Re: [HACKERS] type coerce problem with lztext |