Re: Cascaded Column Drop

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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