From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)zembu(dot)com> |
---|---|
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: | 2001-07-19 17:29:48 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.21.0107191019330.333-100000@candlekeep.home-net.internetconnect.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > This step I disagree with. Well, I disagree with the automated aspect
of
> > the update. How does postgres know that the new table a is sufficiently
> > like the old table that it should be used? A way the DBA could say, "yeah,
> > restablish that," would be fine.
> >
>
> You could DROP a table with CASCADE or RESTRICT keyword if
> you hate the behavior.
You didn't answer the question. :-)
"How does postgres know that the new table a is sufficiently like the old
table that it should be used?"
By making the reattachment automatic, you are saying that once we make an
object of a given name and make objects depend on it, we can never have
another object of the same name but different. Because PG is going to try
to re-attach the dependants for you.
That's different than current behavior, and strikes me as the system being
overly helpful (a class of behavior I personally find very annoying).
Please understand I like the idea of being ABLE to do this reattachment. I
can see a lot of places where it would be VERY useful. My vote though is
to just make reattachment a seperate step or something you flag, like in
the CREATE TABLE, say attach me to everything wanting a table of this
name. Make it something you have to indicate you want.
Take care,
Bill
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-19 17:40:47 | Re: [BUGS] libpgtcl doesn't use UTF encoding of TCL |
Previous Message | Mike Cianflone | 2001-07-19 17:20:47 | Turning off revision tracking so vacuum never needs to be run |