Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ4BH+B+ABDthDEQTF2Mzb8N5sGOfLudxmcAe+hL8eV=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE?  (ash <ash@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE?  (ash <ash@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:22 AM, ash <ash@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> None of that involves answering hypothetical questions; but what you
>> want to do does, and that I think is the problem in a nutshell.
>
> In a nutshell I'd like PostgreSQL to just re-parse the *current* view
> definition.  Should that throw an error, user intervention will be
> required anyway, but most of the time it should just work.

What exactly do you mean by "re-parse the current view definition"?
The only form of the view definition we actually have is already
parsed into an internal form (see pg_rewrite) which, for the reasons
I've attempted to explain, is not easy to adapt to new column types.
I suppose we could deparse that definition and then reparse the
results, but that could lead to some very surprising consequences
(some of which are security-relevant).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing join removals for more join types
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: replication protocol documentation inconsistencies