Re: UNION and pg_restore
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: UNION and pg_restore |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 27308.1356971787@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: UNION and pg_restore (Bryan Lee Nuse <nuse@uga.edu>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
Bryan Lee Nuse <nuse@uga.edu> writes: >> Now you're doubtless wondering why Postgres doesn't dodge this ambiguity >> for you. > This is exactly what I was wondering, of course. And I follow the reasoning behind why it cannot, at present. If Postgrescan't ensure that the view definition is valid SQL, though, what about the (seemingly more manageable) idea of providingsome kind of notice when that definition is not re-loadable? Perhaps pg_dump could do this? I spent considerable time thinking about this last week, and have a draft patch that fixes this issue and some related ones: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-12/msg01694.php So hopefully this hazard will be gone in 9.3. I doubt we'd risk back-patching the change though. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: