| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 7.2 stuff |
| Date: | 2002-02-25 07:41:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20020224233637.V71877-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > * ALTER TABLE DROP PRIMARY KEY
> > - Done, will need review
> > * ALTER TABLE DROP UNIQUE
> > - Done, will need review
>
> > I'll dredge this up again if I can. All it does is add a standards
> > compliant alternative syntax for dropping those constraints. Tom - can you
> > just do this in the parser, like you did it for the ADD constraints???
>
> I don't foresee it falling out of other parser work, if that's what you
> mean. If you want it done in the parser you'll have to do it yourself.
>
> There are some semantic issues, eg: what does it mean to do ALTER TABLE
> DROP PRIMARY KEY in an inheritance hierarchy? Does every child lose its
> primary key (if any), even if it's not inherited from the parent?
Apart from the fact that currently pkeys don't inherit, does it make
sense that the child can have a separate primary key since it should
really be inheriting from the parent and you can't have two, right?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2002-02-25 07:47:25 | Re: [HACKERS] connect with ecpg |
| Previous Message | Janardhana Reddy | 2002-02-25 07:11:32 | Re: [PATCHES] WAL Performance Improvements |