> What I *really* want is having the original source stored, including > comments, version info, ... Currently, it's argued that underlying table > and column might change, braking the view/rule. This could be > restricted, or source could be dropped (alter table ... cascaded). Is it > really only me who tries to put complicated views into pgsql and wants > to understand them 10 days later? We do have an enterprise grade RDBMS, > don't we?
You could argue that comments should be converted to an 'information' node within the query structure which contains comments. They would then be dumped back out to the user. But I think you would be dissapointed if you were returned the view that is no longer correct since someone renamed the tables. -- Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
