On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yes, this mistake needs to be detected earlier. The stored view
> contains both the name and the OID of the referenced table. It should
> *not* accept a new table with same name and different OID, since there's
> no guarantee that the new table has anything like the same column set.
> (ALTER TABLE has some issues here too...)
>
> > Should a 'DROP TABLE' drop the views, fail, or be recoverable from by
> > recreating the table?
>
> Yes ;-).
>
> Any of those behaviors would be better than what we have now. However,
> none of them is going to be easy to implement. There will need to be
> more info stored about views than there is now.
This is an example of a place where the dependencies chart will come
in handy. :) I do actually hope to get to it (if noone else does it)
after my work job has their official release and I get a chance to take
time off and after I've figured out match partial for the referential
integrity stuff (which is more of a pain than I could have ever imagined).
