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


From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>,Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items
Date: 2004-05-06 19:04:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> What about rules/views/functions and who knows what else (domains?)
> might be dependant on the current type definition?

Yeah, I was just thinking about that this morning.  We probably ought to
look for dependencies on the table rowtype as well as the individual

But on the other side of the coin, should we actually reject the ALTER
if we see a function that uses the rowtype as a parameter or result
type?  Without looking inside the function, we can't really tell if the
ALTER will break the function or not.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: James RobinsonDate: 2004-05-06 19:06:56
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL pre-fork speedup
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-05-06 19:02:06
Subject: Re: alter table alter columns vs. domains

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-05-06 19:23:26
Subject: pgsql-server/src/backend port/sysv_shmem.c pos ...
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2004-05-06 19:02:02
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group