[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Been playing with the 7.3beta1 version and I've noticed a small
> problem with dependency checking when dropping a column. If you have
> a view which uses JOIN's to join tables then dropping a column will
> fail on a dependency check, even though the column being dropp
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this a TODO item or something for beta2?
I have patches on my laptop to fix this, and will commit once I've
tested 'em a little more.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
Is this a TODO item or something for beta2?
---
Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 19:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The big difference is that the INNER JOIN code needs to drop
Hi Guys,
I haven't got access to my test machine which is at home so I can't try it
but will the previous practice of creating a temp table (minus the column
you want to delete), dropping the orignal and renaming the temp table work
in 7.3 or will the dependency check catch this when you try and
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The big difference is that the INNER JOIN code needs to drop one of the
> colb's coming up with a virtual relation cola, colb, colc; where the
> other doesn't have such a renaming scheme.
On reflection I think it might be possible to make this work the way
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 10:07, Tim Knowles wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I haven't got access to my test machine which is at home so I can't try it
> but will the previous practice of creating a temp table (minus the column
> you want to delete), dropping the orignal and renaming the temp table work
> in 7
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 09:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Indeed. At the INNER JOIN it would appear that an alias is applied to
> > the columns of a given table.
> > ...
> > The real trick is to make INNER JOINS less greedy in their requirements
> > based on the co
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indeed. At the INNER JOIN it would appear that an alias is applied to
> the columns of a given table.
> ...
> The real trick is to make INNER JOINS less greedy in their requirements
> based on the columns that are actually used.
What surprised me about th
Indeed. At the INNER JOIN it would appear that an alias is applied to
the columns of a given table.
{ RTE :alias { ALIAS :aliasname b :colnames <>} :eref { ALIAS :aliasname
b :colnames ( "col_b" "col_c" )} :rtekind 0 :relid 17194 :inh true
:inFromCl true :checkForRead true :checkForWrite fals
Tim Knowles ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
7.3beta1 DROP COLUMN DEPENDENCY PROBLEM
Long Description
Hi,
Been playing with the 7.3beta1 version and I've noticed a small problem with
dependency checking when dr
10 matches
Mail list logo
