On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:52 AM, ash <a...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:22 AM, ash <a...@commandprompt.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"? > > I mean do what the user will have to do in this situation anyway: > > BEGIN; > DROP VIEW ...; > ALTER TABLE ...; > CREATE VIEW ...; > COMMIT; > > Should this fail, the user will have to work around it, but most of the > time it could just work.
You're either missing or choosing to ignore the point that I'm making, which is that we *don't have* the text form of the view anywhere. If you try to get implement what you're proposing, I'm fairly certain that you'll find that you can't. I agree that it would be nice if there were to make that just work; I've wished for it myself - but I don't see a reasonable way to implement it. >> 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). > > Like? Tom's email covers this point, so I won't repeat what he said. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
