| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Pflug <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_get_triggerdef in pg_dump |
| Date: | 2003-06-17 19:11:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1055877103.45212.141.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> What I *really* want is having the original source stored, including
> comments, version info, ... Currently, it's argued that underlying table
> and column might change, braking the view/rule. This could be
> restricted, or source could be dropped (alter table ... cascaded). Is it
> really only me who tries to put complicated views into pgsql and wants
> to understand them 10 days later? We do have an enterprise grade RDBMS,
> don't we?
You could argue that comments should be converted to an 'information'
node within the query structure which contains comments. They would
then be dumped back out to the user.
But I think you would be dissapointed if you were returned the view that
is no longer correct since someone renamed the tables.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-06-17 20:32:32 | ss_family in hba.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-17 18:43:02 | Re: [HACKERS] Our FLOAT(p) precision does not conform to spec |