I'm just getting back around to this now. I guess I'm wondering if
someone could advise me on the best way of getting closer to a
The original patch just allows additional columns to be appended to
the previous column list (while disallowing all other sorts of
changes, including reordering/renaming/dropping columns). Although I
understand that reordering, renaming, and dropping columns are
potential sources of ambiguity, I don't think there is any possible
ambiguity in adding columns. If so, perhaps this patch or a similar
one might committable.
But if not, then I'd like some suggestions on what could be done to
pave the way for a future patch that would allow a more powerful
version of CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW. Do I need to implement the
three-tiered structure that Tom first proposed here?
The major problem I have with this idea is that it seems to require us
to do everything to do anything. Separating storage location from
permanent ID is a performance enhancement which will probably require
quite a bit of testing and discussion to figure out how it ought to
work and how much control users ought to have over the behavior,
questions which were extensively discussed here:
On the other hand, separating permanent ID from view position requires
working out the semantics of operations that rely on the column
ordering, such as SELECT *, COPY, INSERT without column list, CREATE
OR REPLACE VIEW view_name (column_alias, ...), and SELECT ... FROM
table (column_alias, ...) as well as figuring out what sorts of DDL
commands should be added to manipulate the view position. Trying to
implement both of these things as a single patch sounds like it might
be trying to do too much, but I'm open to suggestions.
I think there would be a lot of benefit in being able to make changes
to views without needing to drop and recreate all the dependent
objects - it would certainly simplify things for me, and I imagine for
others as well. I need some guidance though on where to go with it.
I'd also be interested in knowing if anyone else is working on
anything along these lines.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2008-10-04 15:33:21|
|Subject: CYCLE and SEARCH [was Re: Common Table Expressions (WITHRECURSIVE) patch]|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-10-03 19:55:56|
|Subject: Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |