Re: VIEW problem

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?"
----------------------------------------------

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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