> What I *really* want is having the original source stored, including 
> comments, version info, ... Currently, it's argued that underlying table 
> and column might change, braking the view/rule. This could be 
> restricted, or source could be dropped (alter table ... cascaded). Is it 
> really only me who  tries to put complicated views into pgsql and wants 
> to understand them 10 days later? We do have an enterprise grade RDBMS, 
> don't we?

You could argue that comments should be converted to an 'information'
node within the query structure which contains comments.  They would
then be dumped back out to the user.

But I think you would be dissapointed if you were returned the view that
is no longer correct since someone renamed the tables.


PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to