On Jan11, 2011, at 23:55 , Joel Jacobson wrote:
> 2011/1/11 Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>:
>> Could you give an example of the kind of trouble you're experiencing trying
>> to use a topological sort?
> Let's say you have a table t and a view v.
> The view v is defined as select * from t;
> If we put all objects in a tree, with the public schema as the root,
> both v and t will directly under the root, but in reality, v cannot be
> created before t.
AFAICS, you get the following dependencies (apart from the obvious
NORMAL dependencies from the pg_class entries of t and v on public)
t (pg_class) <--[INTERNAL]-- t (pg_type)
v (pg_class) <--[INTERNAL]-- v (pg_type)
INTERNAL dependencies mark objects which spring into existence once the
referenced (target in my diagram) object is created. You can thus fold a
node I (the INTERNALly-depending object) into a node O (the object created
by the user) if there is an INTERNAL dependency from I to O.
The diagram then becomes
v (pg_class) --[NORMAL]--> t (pg_class)
Which correctly states that t must be created before v.
> This is the reason why a normal topological sort doesn't work.
> You have to look at the deptype and sort nodes having "internal" edges
> between them differently.
I suggest you try to node-folding strategy and see how far it gets you.
> I guess it's time for plan B, sorting based on oid, no biggie, it will
> work for my purpose, but it's damn ugly.
That will probably crash and burn once the OIDs have wrapped around once.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-12 02:41:35|
|Subject: Re: ALTER TYPE 0: Introduction; test cases|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-12 02:24:08|
|Subject: Re: WIP: Range Types|