Re: pg_depend

At 12:37 18/07/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
>> At 11:38 18/07/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 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?
>
>> Not a problem for views, but when you get to constraints on large tables,
>> re-evaluating all the constraints unnecessarily could be a nightmare, and
>> especially frustrating when you just dropped an irrelevant attr.
>
>Huh?  You seem to be thinking that we'd need to re-check the constraint
>at each row of the table, but I don't see why we'd need to.  I was just
>envisioning re-parsing the constraint source text.

I'm paranoid, but there could be a case for doing so, especially if we
allow CHAR(n) to become CHAR(m) where m < n. Or any similar data-affecting
field change.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498)          |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|                                |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/