Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Richard Huxton
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items
Date
Msg-id 409B45D6.8090507@archonet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> 
>>What about rules/views/functions and who knows what else (domains?)
>>might be dependant on the current type definition?
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was just thinking about that this morning.  We probably ought to
> look for dependencies on the table rowtype as well as the individual
> column.
> 
> But on the other side of the coin, should we actually reject the ALTER
> if we see a function that uses the rowtype as a parameter or result
> type?  Without looking inside the function, we can't really tell if the
> ALTER will break the function or not.

With looking, you can't necessarily. What if I'm building a query with 
EXECUTE or for that matter, what if I've written it in C?

--   Richard Huxton  Archonet Ltd


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Oleg Bartunov
Date:
Subject: Re: Subtle pg_dump problem...
Next
From: Gaetano Mendola
Date:
Subject: Re: psql 7.3.4 disagrees with NATURAL CROSS JOIN