Mathijs Brands wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 11:36:56PM -0500, Tom Lane allegedly wrote:
> > Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > How about being able to recompile them (keeping the SQL around in the
> > > system catalogs)? Doesn't Oracle allow you to do something like that?
> >
> >
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 11:36:56PM -0500, Tom Lane allegedly wrote:
> Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How about being able to recompile them (keeping the SQL around in the
> > system catalogs)? Doesn't Oracle allow you to do something like that?
>
> That's another possibility. It'
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I'm intrigued: what is it that causes this? Is it *my*
> > recreating the view on which the other views depend,
>
> Yes. You dropped and recreated the view --- the new version may have
> the same name but it's not the same OID, s
Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about being able to recompile them (keeping the SQL around in the
> system catalogs)? Doesn't Oracle allow you to do something like that?
That's another possibility. It's not real clear that there's any
advantage to storing rules in preparsed form
On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 07:50:00PM -0500, Tom Lane allegedly wrote:
> Andrew Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I'm intrigued: what is it that causes this? Is it *my*
> > recreating the view on which the other views depend,
>
> Yes. You dropped and recreated the view --- the new version
Andrew Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I'm intrigued: what is it that causes this? Is it *my*
> recreating the view on which the other views depend,
Yes. You dropped and recreated the view --- the new version may have
the same name but it's not the same OID, so it isn't the same object.
Thanks - I appreciate the quick reply. As it turns out, I was able to find
the original SQL I used to generate (most of) the queries, so I'm
okay. But I'm intrigued: what is it that causes this? Is it *my*
recreating the view on which the other views depend, or is it some
internal glitch?
Thanks
Andrew Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> fgdata=# \d sx_l_m_r_a
> ERROR: cache lookup of attribute 197 in relation 47074 failed
> fgdata=# select * from pg_views;
> ERROR: cache lookup of attribute 317 in relation 48494 failed
> A SELECT from the rebuilt query itself works fine, so I know it
Greetings-
I'm in a bit of a pickle. I rebuilt a big query on top of which lots of
little queries rest, so as to use some new columns in the query. Now, I
get error messages when trying to access any view that SELECTs from the
rebuilt query:
fgdata=# \d sx_l_m_r_a
ERROR: cache lookup of attrib
