From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "rikard(dot)pavelic" <rikard(dot)pavelic(at)zg(dot)htnet(dot)hr>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #6489: Alter table with composite type/table |
Date: | 2012-03-13 17:12:00 |
Message-ID: | 20120313171200.GC9030@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:40:31AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from rikard.pavelic's message of sáb feb 25 10:23:18 -0300 2012:
>
> > But I would expect second alter to pass and enforcing not null and default
> > when adding this column in table and not enforcing not null and default when
> > adding into composite type for another table.
> >
> > Is this by design, oversight or a TODO?
>
> I think this is more a TODO than anything else. Last year we discussed
> something similar to this -- twice, even; IIRC, one was buried somewhere
> in the discussion about "variant" types, if you want to search the
> pgsql-hackers archives. As far as I recall, discussion died mainly
> because no one had the time and/or energy to pursue it, not because it
> was impossible.
Can you suggest some TODo text?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | kontakt | 2012-03-13 17:12:28 | BUG #6530: intarray documentation could do with a warning about operators |
Previous Message | nehxby | 2012-03-13 14:19:38 | BUG #6529: Invalid numeric input syntax for 'select into' queries |