Re: Making view dump/restore safe at the column-alias level

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Making view dump/restore safe at the column-alias level
Date: 2012-12-31 15:07:34
Message-ID: CAM-w4HPN=zhkV3G7wtTjNBeCa-Cw_0EYrT=zC06ZtX7E+0Hb1w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> On the whole I think this is a "must fix" bug, so we don't have a lot of
> choice, unless someone has a proposal for a different and more compact
> way of solving the problem.

The only more compact way of handling things that I can see is adding
syntax to let us explicitly select exactly the columns we need. But
then the resulting view definitions would be Postgres-specific instead
of standard SQL which would defeat a large part of the motivation to
going to such lengths.

I do wonder whether the SQL standard will do something obtuse enough
that that's the only option for a large swathe of queries. Or is that
the case already? The query syntax you're using here, is it standard
SQL? Is it widely supported?

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-12-31 15:27:10 Re: Making view dump/restore safe at the column-alias level
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-12-31 14:03:53 Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP