From: | Tim Uckun <tim(at)diligence(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Horst Herb <hherb(at)malleenet(dot)net(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: VIEW problem |
Date: | 2000-10-05 09:42:47 |
Message-ID: | 4.2.0.58.20001005023712.00a6ee50@mail.diligence.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 05:48 PM 10/5/2000 +1100, you wrote:
>I believe this is because the OIDs are not identical. Internally, Postgres is
>referring to the OIDs and not to the table name. Might be wrong, I am only a
>postgres newbie, but I think this is the case.
Interesting this makes sense.
>I don't think it is a bug either, this is rather correct and prevents the
>database from doing the wrong thing (your new table foo could be completely
>different from the first table foo)
Here I have to disagree with you. I can't believe that this behaviour was
intended. A view is not materialized and it's simply a RULE which is to say
that it's nothing more then a SQL statement. As long as that SQL statement
is valid, parseable and returns a recordset it really ought not to care
about oids.
----------------------------------------------
Tim Uckun
Mobile Intelligence Unit.
----------------------------------------------
"There are some who call me TIM?"
----------------------------------------------
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nikolay Mijaylov | 2000-10-05 10:28:15 | URGENT: pgsql on the web server - memory problems.... |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-10-05 08:37:54 | Re: executing user-defined functions |