Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> At 11:38 18/07/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd just make the dependency be from view_a to a and keep things
>> simple. What's so wrong with recompiling the view for *every* change
>> of the underlying table?
> Not a problem for views, but when you get to constraints on large tables,
> re-evaluating all the constraints unnecessarily could be a nightmare, and
> especially frustrating when you just dropped an irrelevant attr.
Huh? You seem to be thinking that we'd need to re-check the constraint
at each row of the table, but I don't see why we'd need to. I was just
envisioning re-parsing the constraint source text.
regards, tom lane
