| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ADD/DROP CONSTRAINT and inheritance |
| Date: | 2001-05-24 02:59:53 |
| Message-ID: | 26759.990673193@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I'm not sure what you mean here, Tom - I meant that the ONLY keyword could
> be optional.
The current gram.y code allows either ALTER TABLE foo ONLY or ALTER
TABLE foo* for all forms of ALTER ... with the default interpretation
being the latter.
> At the moment we have:
> * ADD CONSTRAINT does not propagate
I doubt you will find anyone who's willing to argue that that's not a
bug --- specifically, AlterTableAddConstraint()'s lack of inheritance
recursion like its siblings have. Feel free to fix it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-24 03:02:18 | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2001-05-24 02:40:36 | RE: ADD/DROP CONSTRAINT and inheritance |