> What I *really* want is having the original source stored, including
> comments, version info, ... Currently, it's argued that underlying table
> and column might change, braking the view/rule. This could be
> restricted, or source could be dropped (alter table ... cascaded). Is it
> really only me who tries to put complicated views into pgsql and wants
> to understand them 10 days later? We do have an enterprise grade RDBMS,
> don't we?
You could argue that comments should be converted to an 'information'
node within the query structure which contains comments. They would
then be dumped back out to the user.
But I think you would be dissapointed if you were returned the view that
is no longer correct since someone renamed the tables.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc