Re: tracking inherited columns (was: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Henk Enting <h(dot)d(dot)enting(at)mgrid(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Subject: Re: tracking inherited columns (was: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance)
Date: 2010-08-04 15:20:44
Message-ID: 19283.1280935244@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 08/04/2010 06:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Uh, really? Wow. You want to follow the inheritance hierarchy in
>> both directions, both down and up? That seems like it could be
>> confusing.

> It seems more than confusing. It seems fundamentally wrong. It would
> certainly be a violation of POLA.

I agree, this idea seems completely nuts. It is *not* reasonable for
an action applied to a child to change the definition of the parent.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-08-04 15:26:30 Re: merge command - GSoC progress
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-04 15:05:42 Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1