Re: [HACKERS] when does CREATE VIEW not create a view?
От | Ross J. Reedstrom |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] when does CREATE VIEW not create a view? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20000830113547.B31063@rice.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] when does CREATE VIEW not create a view? (t-ishii@sra.co.jp) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [HACKERS] when does CREATE VIEW not create a view?
Re: [HACKERS] when does CREATE VIEW not create a view? Re: [HACKERS] when does CREATE VIEW not create a view? |
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:12:38AM +0900, t-ishii@sra.co.jp wrote: > > > Oh, the patch strikes me since it is not "multibyte aware." O.K. - Here's the multibyte aware version of my patch to fix the truncation of the rulename autogenerated during a CREATE VIEW. I've modified all the places in the backend that want to construct the rulename to use the MakeRetrieveViewRuleName(), where I put the #ifdef MULTIBYTE, so that's the only place that knows how to construct a view rulename. Except pg_dump, where I replicated the code, since it's a standalone binary. The only effect the enduser will see is that views with names len(name) > NAMEDATALEN-4 will fail to be created, if the derived rulename clases with an existing rule: i.e. the user is trying to create two views with long names whose first difference is past NAMEDATALEN-4 (but before NAMEDATALEN: that'll error out after the viewname truncation.) In no case will the user get left with a table without a view rule, as the current code does. > > Please do so. If you need any help, please let me know. > -- > Tatsuo Ishii I haven't tested the MULTIBYTE part. Could you give it a quick once over? Ross -- Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer Computer and Information Technology Institute Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005
Вложения
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: