Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types
Date: 2016-03-17 00:02:40
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbthufj8SZK329pnZtQ_9hXY=kMEnhea+SWbTeKEwPViA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> > On 3/3/16 4:51 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> CREATE TABLE a(a int);
> >> CREATE TABLE b(a a.a%TYPE)
> >>
> >> And the people expecting the living relation between table a and table
> >> b. So when I do ALTER a.a, then b.a should be changed. What if I drop
> >> a.a or drop a?
> >>
> >> So this is reason, why I don't would this feature in SQL side.
>
> > I don't buy that. plpgsql doesn't work that way, so why would this?
> > *especially* with the %TYPE decorator.
>
> Yeah. The %TYPE decorator doesn't work like that in the core parser
> either: when you use it, the referenced type is determined immediately
> and then it's just as if you'd written that type name to begin with.
>

I'm missing something here...%TYPE ends up getting parsed repeatedly and so
appears to be change if the variable upon which it is based changes - even
if once parsed it remains constant for the lifetime of the function's
evaluation.​

I guess what is being said is that the "constant" behavior in SQL ends up
being permanent because a given statement is only ever conceptually parsed
and executed a single time - unlike a function body. The nature of any
solution would still have the same characteristics within a function
because the inherent re-parsing nature and not because of any direct
capability of %TYPE itself.

I do not see a reason for any of these "type operators" to work
> differently.
>
> Another analogy that might help make the point is
>
> set search_path = a;
> create table myschema.tab(f1 mytype);
> set search_path = b;
>
> If there are types "mytype" in both schemas a and b, is myschema.tab.f1
> now of type b.mytype? No. The meaning of the type reference is
> determined when the command executes, and then you're done.
>

And its no different than our treatment of "*"

CREATE VIEW test_view
SELECT *
FROM temp_table;

Adding columns to temp_table doesn't impact which columns the view returns.

David J.​

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-03-17 00:13:06 Re: Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check
Previous Message David Steele 2016-03-16 23:44:24 Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional