From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(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: | 2004-05-07 08:16:22 |
Message-ID: | 409B45D6.8090507@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
> column.
>
> 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.
With looking, you can't necessarily. What if I'm building a query with
EXECUTE or for that matter, what if I've written it in C?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2004-05-07 11:19:06 | pgsql-server/contrib/tsearch2 tsearch.sql.in |
Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-05-07 05:28:23 | pgsql-server/src/interfaces/jdbc/org/postgresq ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-05-07 09:54:38 | Re: psql 7.3.4 disagrees with NATURAL CROSS JOIN |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2004-05-07 07:38:41 | Re: Subtle pg_dump problem... |