Re: About bug #6049

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> But anyway, there are basically two things we could do here: either
>>> allow the table alias to be referenced, or try to teach ruleutils.c
>>> not to qualify the column reference.  The second looks pretty tricky
>>> and maybe not future-proof, so I'm leaning to the first.  Comments?
>
>> I think that makes sense, although it would less totally arbitrary if
>> the alias were just "values" rather than "*VALUES*".  The asterisks
>> suggest that the identifier is fake.  But it's probably too late to do
>> anything about that.
>
> Hmm.  Right now, since the identifier can't be referenced explicitly,
> you could argue that a change might be painless.  But if what we're
> trying to accomplish is to allow existing view definitions of this form
> to be dumped and restored, that wouldn't work.  I'm inclined to leave
> it alone.

Yep. I think we're stuck with it at this point.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company