At 12:37 18/07/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
>> At 11:38 18/07/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'd just make the dependency be from view_a to a and keep things
>>> simple. What's so wrong with recompiling the view for *every* change
>>> of the underlying table?
>
>> Not a problem for views, but when you get to constraints on large tables,
>> re-evaluating all the constraints unnecessarily could be a nightmare, and
>> especially frustrating when you just dropped an irrelevant attr.
>
>Huh? You seem to be thinking that we'd need to re-check the constraint
>at each row of the table, but I don't see why we'd need to. I was just
>envisioning re-parsing the constraint source text.
I'm paranoid, but there could be a case for doing so, especially if we
allow CHAR(n) to become CHAR(m) where m < n. Or any similar data-affecting
field change.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \| | --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/