Re: DROP VIEW code question
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: DROP VIEW code question
Дата
Msg-id
2219.971815421@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: DROP VIEW code question (Peter Eisentraut)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
DROP VIEW code question Mark Hollomon <mhh@mindspring.com>
Re: DROP VIEW code question Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: DROP VIEW code question Mark Hollomon <mhh@mindspring.com>
Re: DROP VIEW code question Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: DROP VIEW code question Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Peter Eisentraut writes: > I don't know how it looks now, but the "DROP TABLE x, y, z" was pretty > broken a while ago. For example, if there was some sort of dependency > between the tables (foreign keys?) it would abort and leave an > inconsistent state. I'm not very fond of this extension, but keep the > issue in mind. This is just a special case of the generic problem that you can't roll back a DROP TABLE. That'll be fixed by 7.1, so I see no reason not to allow the more convenient syntax. BTW, Mark, the reason utility.c implements T_DropStmt with two loops is presumably to try to avoid the rollback-drop-table problem; but it's inherently bogus because not all error conditions can be checked there. You could fold the two loops into one loop, and/or remove any checks that are redundant with RemoveRelation itself. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления