Bill Studenmund wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > Oops I made a mistake. > > Reference name is needed not an object name, > > i.e > > object relid > > object oid > > relerence relid > > reference oid > > reference name > > > > create table a (...); > > create view view_a as select .. from a; > > > > Then we have an pg_depend entry e.g. > > > > pg_class_relid > > oid of the view_a > > pg_class_relid > > oid of the table a > > 'a' the name of the table > > > > and so on. > > > > drop table a; (unadorned drop). > > > > Then the above entry would be changed to > > > > pg_class_relid(unchanged) > > oid of the view_s(unchagned) > > pg_class_relid(unchanged) > > InvalidOid > > 'a' the name of the table(unchanged) > > > > create table a (...); > > > > Then the pg_depend entry would be > > > > pg_class_relid(unchanged) > > oid of the view_s(unchagned) > > pg_class_relid(unchanged) > > the oid of the new table a > > 'a' the name of the table(unchanged) > > This step I disagree with. Well, I disagree with the automated aspect of > the update. How does postgres know that the new table a is sufficiently > like the old table that it should be used? A way the DBA could say, "yeah, > restablish that," would be fine. >
You could DROP a table with CASCADE or RESTRICT keyword if you hate the behavior. regards, Hiroshi Inoue ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
