Re: About bug #6049

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> But anyway, there are basically two things we could do here: either
>> allow the table alias to be referenced, or try to teach ruleutils.c
>> not to qualify the column reference. The second looks pretty tricky
>> and maybe not future-proof, so I'm leaning to the first. Comments?

> I think that makes sense, although it would less totally arbitrary if
> the alias were just "values" rather than "*VALUES*". The asterisks
> suggest that the identifier is fake. But it's probably too late to do
> anything about that.

Hmm. Right now, since the identifier can't be referenced explicitly,
you could argue that a change might be painless. But if what we're
trying to accomplish is to allow existing view definitions of this form
to be dumped and restored, that wouldn't work. I'm inclined to leave
it alone.

regards, tom lane