| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Column ADDing issues |
| Date: | 2000-01-26 00:10:04 |
| Message-ID: | 15550.948845404@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Or maybe look at it this way:
> create table test1 (a int4);
> create table test2 (b int4) inherits (test1);
> ^ col #1 ^ col #2
> alter table test1* add column c int4;
> ^ col #3
> Everything has its order and it's not like the inheritance as such is
> broken.
Yes, a whole bunch of stuff is broken after this happens. Go back and
consult the archives --- or maybe Chris Bitmead will fill you in; he's
got plenty of scars to show for this set of problems. (All I recall
offhand is that pg_dump and reload can fail to generate a working
database.) The bottom line is that it would be a lot nicer if column c
had the same column position in both the parent table and the child
table(s).
I suggest you be very cautious about messing with ALTER TABLE until you
understand why inheritance makes it such a headache ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-26 00:14:29 | Re: [HACKERS] --enable-debug |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-25 23:55:59 | Re: Happy column adding (was RE: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping) |