| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: | 2001-07-18 15:38:24 |
| Message-ID: | 5069.995470704@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I think any deisgn needs to cater for attr dependencies. eg.
I don't really see a need to recognize dependencies at finer than table
level. I'd just make the dependency be from view_a to a and keep things
simple. What's so wrong with recompiling the view for *every* change
of the underlying table?
We could support attr-level dependencies within the proposed pg_depend
layout if we made pg_attribute one of the allowed object categories.
However, I'd prefer not to make OID of pg_attribute rows be a primary
key for that table (in the long run I'd like to not assign OIDs at all
to pg_attribute, as well as other tables that don't need OIDs). So the
better way to do it would be to make the pg_depend entries include
attribute numbers. But I really think this is unnecessary complexity.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2001-07-18 15:43:10 | Re: pg_depend |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-18 15:35:40 | Re: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em |