Joe Conway wrote:
The problem is that you would still need to keep a copy of your view
around to recreate it if you wanted to drop and recreate a table it
depends on. I really like the idea about keeping the original view
source handy in the system catalogs.
This has been the case all the
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 09:56, Jan Wieck wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
The problem is that you would still need to keep a copy of your view
around to recreate it if you wanted to drop and recreate a table it
depends on. I really like the idea about keeping the original view
source handy in the
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 09:56, Jan Wieck wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
The problem is that you would still need to keep a copy of your view
around to recreate it if you wanted to drop and recreate a table it
depends on. I really like the idea about keeping the original view
source handy in the
We actually reverse it on the fly:
test= \d xx
View xx
Column | Type | Modifiers
-+--+---
relname | name |
View definition: SELECT pg_class.relname FROM pg_class;
Well, no - that's just dumping out the parsed form.
eg.
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's really annoying when people save their view definition in phpPgAdmin
and when they load it up again it's lost all formatting. Functions and
rules, for instance keep the original formatting somewhere.
Rules do not. (A view is just a rule
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Hi,
Would it be possible to add a new attribute to pg_views that stores the
original view definition, as entered via SQL?
This would make the lives of those of us who make admin interfaces a lot
easier...
We actually reverse
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We actually reverse it on the fly:
We do, but as soon as you break the view by dropping an underlying
object it fails to reconstruct. So having the original view definition
at hand could be useful for some ALTER VIEW RECOMPILE command.
Note that the
Tom Lane wrote:
Auto reconstruction of a view based on its original textual definition
is still potentially interesting, but I submit that it won't necessarily
always give the right answer.
Sure, it's another bullet to shoot yourself into someone elses foot.
Jan
--
Jan Wieck wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Auto reconstruction of a view based on its original textual definition
is still potentially interesting, but I submit that it won't necessarily
always give the right answer.
Sure, it's another bullet to shoot yourself into someone elses foot.
Do we want
We do, but as soon as you break the view by dropping an underlying
object it fails to reconstruct. So having the original view definition
at hand could be useful for some ALTER VIEW RECOMPILE command.
Note that the assumptions underlying this discussion have changed in
CVS tip: you
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
We do, but as soon as you break the view by dropping an underlying
object it fails to reconstruct. So having the original view definition
at hand could be useful for some ALTER VIEW RECOMPILE command.
Note that the assumptions
Hrm - looks like we really need CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW...
I have written a patch for this. It is in an old source tree. I intend on
getting it together by august, along with create or replace trigger.
Sweet. I was going to email to see if you had a copy of your old create or
replace
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
We do, but as soon as you break the view by dropping an underlying
object it fails to reconstruct. So having the original view definition
at hand could be useful for some ALTER VIEW RECOMPILE command.
Note that the assumptions underlying this discussion have
Hi,
Would it be possible to add a new attribute to pg_views that stores the
original view definition, as entered via SQL?
This would make the lives of those of us who make admin interfaces a lot
easier...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Hi,
Would it be possible to add a new attribute to pg_views that stores the
original view definition, as entered via SQL?
This would make the lives of those of us who make admin interfaces a lot
easier...
We actually reverse it on the fly:
15 matches
Mail list logo
