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


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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gaetano MendolaDate: 2004-05-07 09:54:38
Subject: Re: psql 7.3.4 disagrees with NATURAL CROSS JOIN
Previous:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2004-05-07 07:38:41
Subject: Re: Subtle pg_dump problem...

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Teodor SigaevDate: 2004-05-07 11:19:06
Subject: pgsql-server/contrib/tsearch2
Previous:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2004-05-07 05:28:23
Subject: pgsql-server/src/interfaces/jdbc/org/postgresq ...

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