| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_depend |
| Date: | 2001-07-18 15:31:06 |
| Message-ID: | 5034.995470266@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Reference name is needed not an object name,
Only if we want to support the notion that drop-and-recreate-with-same-name
means that references from other objects should now apply to the new
object. I do not think that that's really a good idea, at least not
without a heck of a lot of compatibility checking. It'd be way too easy
to create cases where the properties of the new object do not match
what the referring object expects.
The majority of the cases I've heard about where this would be useful
are for functions, and we could solve that a lot better with an ALTER
FUNCTION command that allows changing the function body (but not the
name, arguments, or result type).
BTW, name alone is not a good enough referent for functions... you'd
have to store the argument types too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-18 15:35:40 | Re: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-18 15:26:22 | Re: pg_depend |