From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Rule recompilation |
Date: | 2001-07-12 19:51:01 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0107122147540.681-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck writes:
> For most objects, there is no such "recompile" possible - at
> least not without storing alot more information than now.
> Create a function and based on that an operator. Then you
> drop the function and create another one. Hmmm, pg_operator
> doesn't have the function name and argument types, it only
> knows the old functions oid. How do you find the new function
> from here?
In these cases it'd be a lot simpler (and SQL-comforming) to implement the
DROP THING ... { RESTRICT | CASCADE } options. This would probably catch
most honest user errors more cleanly than trying to automatically
recompile things that perhaps aren't even meant to fit together any
longer.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-12 19:53:55 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-12 19:50:42 | Re: Rule recompilation |