Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #3597: CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW

From: "Luiz K(dot) Matsumura" <luiz(at)planit(dot)com(dot)br>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #3597: CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW
Date: 2007-09-04 18:09:16
Message-ID: 46DD9F4C.1080802@planit.com.br (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Wow, I learn a lot about views now
Sorry for my confusion. You are right, my reasoning is very limited.

Thanks Heikki , Tom and Reece by yours answers.


Tom Lane wrote:
> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>   
>> Luiz K. Matsumura wrote:
>>     
>>> But, with  the 'replace' command, this isn't implicit ?
>>> If they found a view, replace the existing view with the new one (on the
>>> other words, drop and create again?)
>>>       
>
>   
>> Replacing is not exactly the same thing as dropping and recreating it.
>> If the view has dependencies, you can't drop it without dropping the
>> dependent objects first, and likewise you can't change its datatypes
>> because it would affect the dependent objects as well (hence the
>> limitation on CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW).
>>     
>
> Right.  And the reason this appears to be a data type change is that
> "NULL" is not length-constrained, so the type computed for the first
> UNION's output is just bpchar (ie, unconstrained-length character)
> rather than character(3) which is what you get in the second case.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
>
>   


-- 
Luiz K. Matsumura
Plan IT Tecnologia Informática Ltda.


In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Luiz K. MatsumuraDate: 2007-09-04 18:24:40
Subject: Re: BUG #3598: Strange behaviour of character columns in select with views
Previous:From: Reece HartDate: 2007-09-04 17:33:27
Subject: Re: BUG #3597: CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group