| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Daniel Cristian Cruz" <danielcristian(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6050: Dump and restore of view after a schema change: can't restore the view |
| Date: | 2011-06-03 17:18:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4DE8D104020000250003E0EB@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Personally my advice is to avoid USING: it wasn't one of the SQL
>> committee's better ideas.
>
> I don't understand why we can't just translate the USING into some
> equivalent construct that doesn't involve USING. I proposed that
> a while ago and you shot it down, but I didn't find the reasoning
> very compelling.
There's no query you can write with USING that you can't write in a
longer form with ON; but a query of moderate complexity can become
significantly shorter with USING, and thus easier to understand and
less prone to bugs than the ON form. I think it's a mistake to
discourage USING or under-support it compared to the more verbose
constructs.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-03 17:19:27 | Re: BUG #6050: Dump and restore of view after a schema change: can't restore the view |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-03 17:01:38 | Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node |