Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > > We don't store dependency information for function bodies, so there's > no way to do this except by reparsing everything in sight. > > A larger issue with the idea is that a function might fail reparsing > for reasons having nothing to do with the proposed ALTER TABLE. > For instance, it's not at all unusual for functions to contain references > to tables that don't normally exist, but are created when the function is > to be called (or maybe even by the function itself). Because of this > problem, "reparsing", in the sense of detecting semantic rather than > purely syntactic problems in a function body, is something that we don't > actually do *at all*, ever, except when the function is actually executed. > (This is part of the reason why there's no dependency info.) > Pavel Stehule has made some efforts towards improving that situation > for plpgsql functions: > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=884 > but that patch remains pretty controversial and may never get committed. > Even if it does get in, it wouldn't move the goalposts for any other PL.
OK, forget functions, I now realize it's not feasible to consider. Can we get back to re-defining views at least? -- Alex -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
