Re: Don't cascade drop to view

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:10:25AM -0600, Erik Jones wrote:
> If you dropped tables out from under views, how would you expect them
> to act if someone were to query them? Inconsistent and unpredictable
> are just two words I'd use to describe a system that allowed that.

I'd expect it to throw an error that the tables are missing. I ran into
this today. All it really requires is that the view definition be
parsed at use time rather than at creation time.

> However, if these are relatively simple views, you may be able to get
> away with re-implementing them as functions that return sets of
> whatever record type your views are.

As you say, functions are compiled at use time, and hence don't suffer
this problem. You can build a view on the function and it should be
transparent...

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
> -- John F Kennedy