On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > This step I disagree with. Well, I disagree with the automated aspect
of
> > the update. How does postgres know that the new table a is sufficiently
> > like the old table that it should be used? A way the DBA could say, "yeah,
> > restablish that," would be fine.
> >
>
> You could DROP a table with CASCADE or RESTRICT keyword if
> you hate the behavior.
You didn't answer the question. :-)
"How does postgres know that the new table a is sufficiently like the old
table that it should be used?"
By making the reattachment automatic, you are saying that once we make an
object of a given name and make objects depend on it, we can never have
another object of the same name but different. Because PG is going to try
to re-attach the dependants for you.
That's different than current behavior, and strikes me as the system being
overly helpful (a class of behavior I personally find very annoying).
Please understand I like the idea of being ABLE to do this reattachment. I
can see a lot of places where it would be VERY useful. My vote though is
to just make reattachment a seperate step or something you flag, like in
the CREATE TABLE, say attach me to everything wanting a table of this
name. Make it something you have to indicate you want.
Take care,
Bill
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
