From: | ash <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE? |
Date: | 2014-06-02 12:52:06 |
Message-ID: | 8761kjh3t5.fsf@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:22 AM, ash <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> None of that involves answering hypothetical questions; but what you
>>> want to do does, and that I think is the problem in a nutshell.
>>
>> In a nutshell I'd like PostgreSQL to just re-parse the *current* view
>> definition. Should that throw an error, user intervention will be
>> required anyway, but most of the time it should just work.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "re-parse the current view definition"?
I mean do what the user will have to do in this situation anyway:
BEGIN;
DROP VIEW ...;
ALTER TABLE ...;
CREATE VIEW ...;
COMMIT;
Should this fail, the user will have to work around it, but most of the
time it could just work.
> The only form of the view definition we actually have is already
> parsed into an internal form (see pg_rewrite) which, for the reasons
> I've attempted to explain, is not easy to adapt to new column types.
> I suppose we could deparse that definition and then reparse the
> results, but that could lead to some very surprising consequences
> (some of which are security-relevant).
Like?
--
Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-06-02 12:55:35 | Re: WAL replay bugs |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-06-02 12:44:27 | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |