From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Making view dump/restore safe at the column-alias level |
Date: | 2012-12-31 15:07:34 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPN=zhkV3G7wtTjNBeCa-Cw_0EYrT=zC06ZtX7E+0Hb1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> On the whole I think this is a "must fix" bug, so we don't have a lot of
> choice, unless someone has a proposal for a different and more compact
> way of solving the problem.
The only more compact way of handling things that I can see is adding
syntax to let us explicitly select exactly the columns we need. But
then the resulting view definitions would be Postgres-specific instead
of standard SQL which would defeat a large part of the motivation to
going to such lengths.
I do wonder whether the SQL standard will do something obtuse enough
that that's the only option for a large swathe of queries. Or is that
the case already? The query syntax you're using here, is it standard
SQL? Is it widely supported?
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-31 15:27:10 | Re: Making view dump/restore safe at the column-alias level |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-12-31 14:03:53 | Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP |