| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Henk Enting <h(dot)d(dot)enting(at)mgrid(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: tracking inherited columns (was: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance) |
| Date: | 2010-08-04 18:56:41 |
| Message-ID: | 23993.1280948201@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree, this idea seems completely nuts. It is *not* reasonable for
>> an action applied to a child to change the definition of the parent.
> Also not in the case that we're talking about here?
> A.a_column B.a_column
> | /
> v v
> C.a_column
> C inherits from A and B.
> The user wants to change a_column to better_name.
Well, if A and B inherited the column from a common ancestor, he can
easily do that. If not, maybe he should have thought harder before he
started. I do NOT agree that issuing a rename against C is a sane way
of dealing with this.
> This doesn't seem nuts to me.
You're in the minority.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-04 18:58:32 | Re: patch for contrib/isn |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-08-04 18:55:47 | Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by |