| From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Really bad/weird stuff with views over tables in 7.0.2 |
| Date: | 2000-09-02 18:21:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20000902112159.Z18862@fw.wintelcom.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [000902 11:06] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> > If you define a table and then create a select query rule over it
> > then drop the rule the table will be gone.
>
> > Another related problem is that let's say you have done this and
> > the table you've "hidden" with a view is rather large and has
> > indexes then postgresql will seriously choke on trying to
> > vacuum and/or vacuum analyze the table which is really a view!
>
> Looks OK from here ... how about a reproducible example?
Ok, typo on my part, if you type "DROP VIEW foo;" that nukes the rule and
the table behind it. Is that the expected behavior? I'll try to
figure out a way to demonstrate the problem I thought I was having
with data in both tables later right now I desperately need sleep. :)
thanks,
-Alfred
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-09-02 19:06:14 | Isn't non-TEST_AND_SET code long dead? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-09-02 18:06:38 | Re: Really bad/weird stuff with views over tables in 7.0.2 |