From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump in 7.4 |
Date: | 2002-11-14 05:39:52 |
Message-ID: | 87fzu4u2tz.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> * We don't store dependencies for SQL functions to things mentioned in
> the SQL function body. (Maybe we should, but we don't.) So there's
> data missing in that case, and possibly other cases.
This might be interesting to do, and we could tie it into the need to
invalidate PL/PgSQL functions that depend on a database object when
the object is changed.
Perhaps when the function is defined, we run all the SQL queries in
the function body through the parser/analyzer/rewriter, and then
generate dependencies on the Query trees we get back?
In any case, there would be a limit to what we could divine from the
function definition (e.g. we'd get practically no info about a
function defined in C) -- but this might make things a little nicer,
anyway.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-11-14 05:43:32 | Re: RC1? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-11-14 05:24:06 | Re: An article mentioning PostgreSQL |