Thread: drop view with out cascading the dependents
Hi List,
Is there any feature to drop the view with out cascading the dependents.
Below is my requirement.
I have a view which is dependent on the other view/table. I wanted to drop the view dynamically and recreate the view with same name ( definition of view will differ ) with out cascading its dependents, after that I created the view it should have its dependents as to that of older one.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Ravi Katkar
Ravi Katkar <Ravi.Katkar@infor.com> writes:
> Is there any feature to drop the view with out cascading the dependents.
No. But why don't you use CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Ravi Katkar <Ravi.Katkar@infor.com> writes: >> Is there any feature to drop the view with out cascading the dependents. > > No. But why don't you use CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW? > only caveat is, it won't work if he adds/removes any columns. CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW is rather useless in most practical implementations. -- GJ
That's true . it wont work if we add remove the columns. I wanted to add column to view and change the data type to existing column -----Original Message----- From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz [mailto:gryzman@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:50 PM To: Tom Lane Cc: Ravi Katkar; pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] drop view with out cascading the dependents On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Ravi Katkar <Ravi.Katkar@infor.com> writes: >> Is there any feature to drop the view with out cascading the dependents. > > No. But why don't you use CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW? > only caveat is, it won't work if he adds/removes any columns. CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW is rather useless in most practical implementations. -- GJ
You can always recreate the dependent views in the same process, since you won't lose any data. If there are also linked tables you could use COPY before deleting and recreating, it's fairly fast.
But..does the structure of your data really need to change? Just guessing, but it just sounds a little like adjusting the schema to suit an application, not the data.
But..does the structure of your data really need to change? Just guessing, but it just sounds a little like adjusting the schema to suit an application, not the data.
2010/10/20 Ravi Katkar <Ravi.Katkar@infor.com>
That's true . it wont work if we add remove the columns.
I wanted to add column to view and change the data type to existing column
2010/10/19 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Ravi Katkar <Ravi.Katkar@infor.com> writes: >>> Is there any feature to drop the view with out cascading the dependents. >> >> No. But why don't you use CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW? >> > only caveat is, it won't work if he adds/removes any columns. CREATE > OR REPLACE VIEW is rather useless in most practical implementations. In recent versions of postgres (I think 8.4+?) you can add columns to the view via create/replace (not drop of course). This greatly reduces the practical annoyances of dropping view dependencies, at least for me... merlin
2010/10/20 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>: > In recent versions of postgres (I think 8.4+?) you can add columns to > the view via create/replace (not drop of course). This greatly > reduces the practical annoyances of dropping view dependencies, at > least for me... Ok, We're still on 8.3 here, and management reluctant to upgrade. (which makes some sense). -- GJ