Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:52 AM, ash <a...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> 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. > > Even if we did, I don't think it'd affect this decision. > > The real problem in my mind is one of user expectations. If the database > silently does something behind your back, people expect that that action > will be *right* and they don't have to worry about it. I don't think > that automatically reparsing views has much chance of clearing that bar. > In much simpler, non-extensible SQL systems it could probably work, but > for better or worse Postgres has gone all-in on datatype extensibility.
Alright, I think I can let it go now. It's just that the behavior was very counter-intuitive to me (and I guess a lot others) at first. Thanks all for your time and in-depth explanation! -- Alex -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
