Re: pg_depend

> Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> > I think any deisgn needs to cater for attr dependencies. eg.
> 
> I don't really see a need to recognize dependencies at finer than table
> level.  I'd just make the dependency be from view_a to a and keep things
> simple.  What's so wrong with recompiling the view for *every* change
> of the underlying table?

What about other objects.  Foreign keys?  Serial?

> We could support attr-level dependencies within the proposed pg_depend
> layout if we made pg_attribute one of the allowed object categories.
> However, I'd prefer not to make OID of pg_attribute rows be a primary
> key for that table (in the long run I'd like to not assign OIDs at all
> to pg_attribute, as well as other tables that don't need OIDs).  So the
> better way to do it would be to make the pg_depend entries include
> attribute numbers.  But I really think this is unnecessary complexity.

I liked the pg_attribute references for some uses.  I agree doing that
for a view seems overly complex.

I don't see any value in dropping oid from pg_attribute.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026