| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cascaded Column Drop |
| Date: | 2002-09-27 05:43:37 |
| Message-ID: | 21519.1033105417@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> writes:
> But think about the inheritance case again: suppose
> create table p (f1 int);
> create table c (f2 int) inherits (p);
> Now you just change your mind and want to drop p but not c. You can't
> do it because f1 is the last column on it, and c inherits it. So a way
> to drop the last column inherited (thus freeing the dependency on p)
> makes c independent, and you can drop p.
Hmm, no I don't think so. Parent-to-child dependence is a property of
the two tables, not of their columns, and should not go away just
because you reduce the parent to zero columns. I would expect that if
I dropped p.f1 (assuming this were allowed) and then added p.g1, that
c would also now have c.g1. So the parent/child relationship outlives
any specific column ... IMHO anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Bertheau | 2002-09-27 06:48:40 | Re: [PHP] WebDB Developers Wanted |
| Previous Message | Yury Bokhoncovich | 2002-09-27 05:14:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-09-27 23:19:59 | Re: one last patch - array lower and upper bound |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-27 04:46:33 | Re: one last patch - array lower and upper bound |