From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN |
Date: | 2002-10-04 22:21:06 |
Message-ID: | 20021004222106.GC12448@atentus.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 05:57:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm thinking about ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN working properly when
> > child tables already contain the column.
> > There are two cases: one when specifying ALTER TABLE ONLY, and other
> > when specifying recursive (not ONLY).
> I don't like resetting attislocal here. If you do that, then DROPping
> the parent column doesn't return you to the prior state. I think I gave
> this example before, but consider
Huh, I don't know where I got the idea you were (or someone else was?)
in the position that attislocal should be reset. I'll clean everything
up and submit the patch I had originally made.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end." (2nd Commandment for C programmers)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-10-04 23:03:59 | Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching |
Previous Message | Curtis Faith | 2002-10-04 22:09:07 | Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-10-05 08:46:23 | Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-04 21:57:02 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN |