On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > On the whole I think this is a "must fix" bug, so we don't have a lot of > choice, unless someone has a proposal for a different and more compact > way of solving the problem.
The only more compact way of handling things that I can see is adding syntax to let us explicitly select exactly the columns we need. But then the resulting view definitions would be Postgres-specific instead of standard SQL which would defeat a large part of the motivation to going to such lengths. I do wonder whether the SQL standard will do something obtuse enough that that's the only option for a large swathe of queries. Or is that the case already? The query syntax you're using here, is it standard SQL? Is it widely supported? -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
