On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 09:56, Jan Wieck wrote: > Joe Conway wrote: > > The problem is that you would still need to keep a copy of your view > > around to recreate it if you wanted to drop and recreate a table it > > depends on. I really like the idea about keeping the original view > > source handy in the system catalogs. > > This has been the case all the time. I only see an attempt to > make this impossible with the new dependency system. If I *must* > specify CASCADE to drop an object, my view depends on, my view > will be gone. If I don't CASCADE, I cannot drop the object. > > So there is no way left to break the view temporarily (expert > mode here, I know what I do so please let me) and fix it later by > just reparsing the views definition.
As somebody said, this is the place where CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE could be useful. (IMHO it should recompile dependent views/rules/... automatically or mark them as broken if compilation fails) ------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
