| 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 16:37:48 |
| Message-ID: | 5447.995474268@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:
> At 11:38 18/07/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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?
> Not a problem for views, but when you get to constraints on large tables,
> re-evaluating all the constraints unnecessarily could be a nightmare, and
> especially frustrating when you just dropped an irrelevant attr.
Huh? You seem to be thinking that we'd need to re-check the constraint
at each row of the table, but I don't see why we'd need to. I was just
envisioning re-parsing the constraint source text.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Macdonald | 2001-07-18 16:51:14 | Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-18 16:35:04 | Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em |