Re: BUG #6489: Alter table with composite type/table

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. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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