From: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Mark Hollomon <mhh(at)nortelnetworks(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Backend-internal SPI operations |
Date: | 2000-08-30 16:32:45 |
Message-ID: | 39AD372D.EC54785@mascari.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Some idiot wrote:
>
> The fact that views can be created by a separate table/rule
> sequence allows pg_dump to properly dump views which are based
> upon functions, or views which may have dependencies on other
> tables/views. The new pg_dump dumps in oid order in an attempt to
> resolve 95% of the dependency problems, but it could never solve
> a circular dependency. I was thinking that with:
>
> (a) The creation of an ALTER FUNCTION name(args) SET ...
>
> and
>
> (b) Allow for functions to be created like:
>
> CREATE FUNCTION foo(int) RETURNS int AS NULL;
>
> which would return NULL as a result.
>
> A complex schema with views based upon functions, tables, and
> other views, and functions based upon views could be properly
> dumped by dumping:
>
> 1. Function Prototypes (CREATE FUNCTION ... AS NULL)
> 2. Types
> 3. Aggregates
> 4. Operators
> 5. Sequences
> 6. Tables
>
> ...more idiocy follows...
Sorry. I forgot about function prototypes with arguments of
user-defined types. Seems there's no magic bullet. :-(
Mike Mascari
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-08-30 16:35:47 | Re: [HACKERS] when does CREATE VIEW not create a view? |
Previous Message | Fabien Thiriet | 2000-08-30 16:05:56 | How to use the "setof" of CREATE FUNCTION |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-08-30 16:35:47 | Re: [HACKERS] when does CREATE VIEW not create a view? |
Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2000-08-30 16:03:15 | Re: Backend-internal SPI operations |