Re: ALTER TABLE TODO items
Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2004-05-07T08:16:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes: > >>What about rules/views/functions and who knows what else (domains?) >>might be dependant on the current type definition? > > > Yeah, I was just thinking about that this morning. We probably ought to > look for dependencies on the table rowtype as well as the individual > column. > > But on the other side of the coin, should we actually reject the ALTER > if we see a function that uses the rowtype as a parameter or result > type? Without looking inside the function, we can't really tell if the > ALTER will break the function or not. With looking, you can't necessarily. What if I'm building a query with EXECUTE or for that matter, what if I've written it in C? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd