Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, ash <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE?
Date: 2014-06-03 20:43:58
Message-ID: 28663.1401828238@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm guessing you did not read
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18723.1401734537@sss.pgh.pa.us

> Argh, sorry, I saw that go by and it went past my eyes but obviously I
> didn't really absorb it. I guess we could do it that way. But it
> seems like quite a hassle to me; I think we're going to continue to
> get complaints here until this is Easy. And if it can't be made Easy,
> then we're going to continue to get complaints forever.

Well, my vision of it is that it *is* easy, if you're using the tool
(or, perhaps, one of several tools), and you have a case that doesn't
really require careful semantic review. But trying to build this sort
of thing into the backend is the wrong approach: it's going to lead
to unpleasant compromises and/or surprises. And we'd still have to
build that tool someday.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-06-03 20:45:52 Re: json casts
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2014-06-03 20:39:34 Re: json casts