From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Inheritance, referential integrity and other constraints |
Date: | 2000-01-26 19:05:39 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000126110539.00fb0790@mail.pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 07:35 PM 1/26/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>On 2000-01-24, Oliver Elphick mentioned:
>
>> I would like to work on improving implementation of inheritance,
>> especially with regard to referential integrity. I suspect there are
>> a number of issues that may be related and will need to be done together.
>
>What I really consider a problem, and it would be great if you could
>tackle that, is that there is no real standard that all of this does or
>even could follow. For example, I wrote the other day that depending on
>which way you see it, the behaviour of alter table x* add colum might be
>considered right.
Are you basing this on your earlier comment:
"
Or maybe look at it this way:
create table test1 (a int4);
create table test2 (b int4) inherits (test1);
^ col #1 ^ col #2
alter table test1* add column c int4;
^ col #3
"?
If so, I thought Oliver pointed out that you had the numbering wrong.
I thought so, too...
Which is right?
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karel Zak - Zakkr | 2000-01-26 19:32:02 | Re: [PATCHES] commit TO_CHAR() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-26 18:40:54 | Re: [HACKERS] DISTINCT ON: speak now or forever hold your peace |