On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:10:25AM -0600, Erik Jones wrote: > If you dropped tables out from under views, how would you expect them > to act if someone were to query them? Inconsistent and unpredictable > are just two words I'd use to describe a system that allowed that. I'd expect it to throw an error that the tables are missing. I ran into this today. All it really requires is that the view definition be parsed at use time rather than at creation time. > However, if these are relatively simple views, you may be able to get > away with re-implementing them as functions that return sets of > whatever record type your views are. As you say, functions are compiled at use time, and hence don't suffer this problem. You can build a view on the function and it should be transparent... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. > -- John F Kennedy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
