On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> But anyway, there are basically two things we could do here: either >>> allow the table alias to be referenced, or try to teach ruleutils.c >>> not to qualify the column reference. The second looks pretty tricky >>> and maybe not future-proof, so I'm leaning to the first. Comments? > >> I think that makes sense, although it would less totally arbitrary if >> the alias were just "values" rather than "*VALUES*". The asterisks >> suggest that the identifier is fake. But it's probably too late to do >> anything about that. > > Hmm. Right now, since the identifier can't be referenced explicitly, > you could argue that a change might be painless. But if what we're > trying to accomplish is to allow existing view definitions of this form > to be dumped and restored, that wouldn't work. I'm inclined to leave > it alone.
Yep. I think we're stuck with it at this point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
