From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Call for pg_dump testing |
Date: | 2003-12-08 04:03:56 |
Message-ID: | 3FD3F82C.8090603@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> and a dump that orders the two views arbitrarily. We can certainly add
> code to do something different, but are there any real-world cases where
> this is needed? The above example seems more than slightly made-up.
> The views aren't actually functional anyway (trying to use either would
> result in an "infinite recursion" error). Can you show me a non-broken
> situation where pg_dump needs to resort to view shells?
Well then shouldn't we just ban you from creating a view that creates a
circular dependency?
Thinks... How about if the views were using each others 'table type' to
do something? Although you cannot change the return type definition can
you?
Hmmm.
>>Also shouldn't we really separate out the 'can modify catalogs manually'
>>privilege from the 'superuser' privilege?
>
>
> See pg_shadow.usecatupd. This could stand to be better supported maybe
> (like with ALTER USER support)?
Sounds like this should be a TODO...
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-08 04:25:57 | Re: aggregate + view + alias crash on 7.4 stable |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-08 03:43:52 | Re: Call for pg_dump testing |