> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:Andreas.Pflug@web.de]
> Sent: 07 May 2003 14:57
> To: Dave Page; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: contribute pg_get_viewdef2 et al
>
>
> That's really a matter of philosophy. Taking MSSQL as an example, the
> view wouldn't be runnable any more, if tables or columns are
> renamed. On
> the other hand, tables can be dropped and recreated, and the
> view will
> still be runnable because the saved plan is dropped and will
> be created
> from source the first time it is used again.
I can't see many people voting for a change to that behaviour. It's too
big, with too little gain.
> As a solution in pgsql, there are two ways (combinable)
> - Preventing table and column rename, if referenced by rules or views
> (ALTER TABLE xx RENAME TO xx2 RESTRICT), just as DROP does
> - invalidating the source, so only the reverse-engineered node
> representation is available (ALTER TABLE xx RENAME TO xx2 CASCADE)
Possibly. You'd have to raise it on the hackers list, and see what the
response is.
Regards, Dave.
