Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items
| От | Richard Huxton |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 409B45D6.8090507@archonet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes: > >>What about rules/views/functions and who knows what else (domains?) >>might be dependant on the current type definition? > > > Yeah, I was just thinking about that this morning. We probably ought to > look for dependencies on the table rowtype as well as the individual > column. > > But on the other side of the coin, should we actually reject the ALTER > if we see a function that uses the rowtype as a parameter or result > type? Without looking inside the function, we can't really tell if the > ALTER will break the function or not. With looking, you can't necessarily. What if I'm building a query with EXECUTE or for that matter, what if I've written it in C? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: