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