Bill MacArthur <webmas...@dhs-club.com> writes:
> Perhaps this issue has been resolved in higher sub-versions or in 9.1?
No, seems to be just the same in HEAD :-(
> In summary, the issue revolves around the data type of a column being
> changed, but the data type in a dependent rule on another table does not.
> Does the data type have to be embedded in the rule?
Yeah, it does, or at least the implications of not doing so would amount
to a ground-up redesign, as well as moving a lot of cycles out of rule
creation and into every rule use.
What I would have expected to happen is for the ALTER TABLE to throw an
error telling you it couldn't cope with updating the rule, and that
you'd need to fix that manually. There is such a test involving views;
not sure why it's not catching this rule.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
