
> Problem is when I want change view (or functions) with a lot of dependecies
> I must drop and recreate all dependent views (or functions) - 
> I want add only one column in view 
> I don't know if solution hard for that.

I do not see how adding a column to a view would invalidate
dependent objects. (Except an object that uses "select *", in which case
the writer of the object explicitly states that he can cope with changing 
column count and order). 

Thus I think "create or replace" should work in this case regardless of 
what definition for "create or replace" finds a consensus, no ?

Andreas

Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:24:19 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: create or replace view
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:

>
> > Problem is when I want change view (or functions) with a lot of dependecies
> > I must drop and recreate all dependent views (or functions) -
> > I want add only one column in view
> > I don't know if solution hard for that.
>
> I do not see how adding a column to a view would invalidate
> dependent objects. (Except an object that uses "select *", in which case
> the writer of the object explicitly states that he can cope with changing
> column count and order).

I'm not sure, but can all the places that currently save a plan deal with
getting a longer rowtype than expected? I'd guess so due to inheritance,
but we'd have to be absolutely sure. It'd also change the return type
for functions that are defined to return the composite type the view
defines.


Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Re: create or replace view