> Take it a little further: if we extend ALTER TABLE to be able to alter
> view column types, would you expect CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW to stop
> checking that the column types didn't change? I'd argue that that's a
> real bad idea. If you want the view's output signature to change, you
> should have to use a command that indicates that's your intent.
Sounds reasonable. I was just wondering if renaming columns with ALTER
TABLE was intentional...
Chris