Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Don Baccus
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?
Дата
Msg-id 3.0.1.32.20000221102715.010ada40@mail.pacifier.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?  (Ed Loehr <eloehr@austin.rr.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
At 12:11 PM 2/21/00 -0600, Ed Loehr wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:
>> 
>> Even pg_dump works, though I had to modify a couple of views in order
>> to get them reload correctly.  
>
>Don, could you elaborate on what you had to do to make your views
>reload correctly?

Good timing - I was about to post on this subject anyway.

I was able to fix my views by changing:

create view foo as select * from bar;

to:

...select * from bar bar;

In other words, an explicit declaration of the range table name (is
that the right term?P my mind's numb from porting queries all weekend)
leads to a rule that will reload.

I figured this out because there are some fairly complex views in
this datamodel, which use explicit names to avoid ambiguous column
references.

The standard actually says that a from clause like "from bar" 
implicitly declares "bar" for you, i.e. is exactly equivalent
to "from bar bar".  If Postgres name scoping - which I know is
not standard-compliant in the JOIN syntax case - is close enough
so that a transformation of "from bar" to "from bar bar" could
be done in the parser without breaking existing code, then a
lot more views could be successfully be dumped and reloaded.

Would all views dump/reload, or are there other problems I don't know
about?  I'm not in a position to judge, I've been too deeply embedded
in getting this toolkit ready for release (our first will be Wednesday)
to worry about the general case.  However, I do know that doing the
transformation by hand in the datamodel source has fixed the problem
for me.

Does anyone know if there are other problems?

Even if there are, a simple transformation such as I describe would
help - IF it didn't break existing code.  If it would break existing
code, then it is due to non-compliance with the standard so perhaps
wouldn't be such a terrible thing, either.  I'm not really in a
position to judge.

What do folks think?  



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
 


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Don Baccus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?