Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a backwards-compatibility hangover.
> But I'd not want to break it just because someone thinks the hack is
> ugly. It was ugly from day one.
I agree it shouldn't be removed -- I was just curious to see what was
using it. It's certainly ugly, though.
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Under what circumstances do we "convert a relation to a view"? Is this
> functionality exposed to the user?
This is a backwards-compatibility hangover. pg_dump scripts from
somewhere back in the Dark Ages (6.something) would represent a view
as
CR
I noticed the following code in src/backend/rewrite/rewriteDefine.c,
circa line 390:
/*
* Are we converting a relation to a view?
*
* If so, check that the relation is empty because the storage
* for the relation i
