Thread: DROP VIEW name WITHOUT TYPE
Is it possible to extend DROP VIEW command:
DROP VIEW [ IF EXISTS ] name [, ...] [ CASCADE | RESTRICT | WITHOUT TYPE]
I want to allow to DROP VIEW if any objects depend on it.
Am I right, If we leave (or convert) TYPE linked to VIEW, then DROP will be possible?
--
Przemysław Sztoch | Mobile +48 509 99 00 66
Przemysław Sztoch | Mobile +48 509 99 00 66
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 7:51 AM Przemysław Sztoch <przemyslaw@sztoch.pl> wrote:
Is it possible to extend DROP VIEW command:
DROP VIEW [ IF EXISTS ]name[, ...] [ CASCADE | RESTRICT | WITHOUT TYPE] I want to allow to DROP VIEW if any objects depend on it. Am I right, If we leave (or convert) TYPE linked to VIEW, then DROP will be possible?
No...you can't write "select * from type_name" and that is going to be the most common kind of dependency you have to deal with.
David J.
=?UTF-8?Q?Przemys=C5=82aw_Sztoch?= <przemyslaw@sztoch.pl> writes:
> Am I right, If we leave (or convert) TYPE linked to VIEW, then DROP will be possible?
No ...
CREATE VIEW level1 AS SELECT * FROM base_table;
CREATE VIEW level2 AS SELECT * FROM level1;
You can't drop level1 without dropping level2; the composite type
associated with level1 doesn't enter into that. I'd actually
find it rather surprising if there are many real-world cases where
other objects have a dependency on a view's composite type but not
on the view itself.
regards, tom lane