On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> On the whole I think this is a "must fix" bug, so we don't have a lot of
> choice, unless someone has a proposal for a different and more compact
> way of solving the problem.
The only more compact way of handling things that I can see is adding
syntax to let us explicitly select exactly the columns we need. But
then the resulting view definitions would be Postgres-specific instead
of standard SQL which would defeat a large part of the motivation to
going to such lengths.
I do wonder whether the SQL standard will do something obtuse enough
that that's the only option for a large swathe of queries. Or is that
the case already? The query syntax you're using here, is it standard
SQL? Is it widely supported?
--
greg
