Tom,
> As for the dependency issue, one man's bug is another man's feature.
> I think the fact that we don't track the internal dependencies of
> functions is not all bad. We've certainly seen plenty of complaints
> about how you can't easily change tables that a view is depending on
> because the view dependencies block it...
I'd agree with this. I write about 150,000 lines of function code a year,
and if I had to rebuild all of the cascading functions every time I change
a table they way I have to with views, it would probably add 20% to my
overall application development time.
BTW, the other thing that we're still TODOing on SRFs (as far as I know) is
finding ways to change the row estimate for an SRF. It's still a flat
1000 in the code, which can cause a lot of bad query plans. I proposed a
year ago that, as a first step, we allow the function owner to assign a
static estimate variable to the function (i.e. "average rows returned =
5'). This doesn't solve the whole problem of SRF estimates but it would
be a significant step forwards in being able to use them in queries.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
