"Robert Haas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Because it sidesteps the problem of tracking which column is supposed to >> be which. If you try to do it through CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW, you have >> to either be extremely restrictive (like probably not allow renaming >> of columns at all), or write some AI-complete algorithm to guess at what >> the user intended.
> The current code takes the approach of being extremely restrictive - > it doesn't let you change anything at all. The code I'm proposing > manages to relax that restriction without creating any ambiguity that > anyone has been able to point out. All of the ambiguities that have > been mentioned are problems that might be created by some other, > entirely hypothetical patch. Well, my feeling is that if we are inventing a new feature we ought not paint ourselves into a corner by failing to consider what will happen when obvious extensions to the feature are attempted. Whether the present patch is self-consistent is not the question --- the question is do we have a self-consistent vision of how we will later do the other stuff like renaming, changing column type, etc. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers