From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | ash <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE? |
Date: | 2014-06-02 11:56:01 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ4BH+B+ABDthDEQTF2Mzb8N5sGOfLudxmcAe+hL8eV=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:22 AM, ash <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> None of that involves answering hypothetical questions; but what you
>> want to do does, and that I think is the problem in a nutshell.
>
> In a nutshell I'd like PostgreSQL to just re-parse the *current* view
> definition. Should that throw an error, user intervention will be
> required anyway, but most of the time it should just work.
What exactly do you mean by "re-parse the current view definition"?
The only form of the view definition we actually have is already
parsed into an internal form (see pg_rewrite) which, for the reasons
I've attempted to explain, is not easy to adapt to new column types.
I suppose we could deparse that definition and then reparse the
results, but that could lead to some very surprising consequences
(some of which are security-relevant).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-06-02 12:04:30 | Re: replication protocol documentation inconsistencies |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2014-06-02 11:03:42 | Re: Allowing join removals for more join types |