Re: pg_views.definition
От | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_views.definition |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3D352347.F1836737@Yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_views.definition ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_views.definition
Re: pg_views.definition |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway wrote: > The problem is that you would still need to keep a copy of your view > around to recreate it if you wanted to drop and recreate a table it > depends on. I really like the idea about keeping the original view > source handy in the system catalogs. This has been the case all the time. I only see an attempt to make this impossible with the new dependency system. If I *must* specify CASCADE to drop an object, my view depends on, my view will be gone. If I don't CASCADE, I cannot drop the object. So there is no way left to break the view temporarily (expert mode here, I know what I do so please let me) and fix it later by just reparsing the views definition. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: