Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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