Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The attached patch uses the globally defined list.
> I can't speak for any other committer, but personally I'm prepared to
> reject out of hand any solution involving a global variable. This
> code is none to easy to follow as it is and adding global variables to
> the mix is not going to make it better, even if we can convince
> ourselves that it's safe and correct. This is something of a corner
> case, so I won't be crushed if a cleaner fix is too invasive to
> back-patch.
Hello Robert,

Thanks for looking at the patch. I've attached a bit more wordy version,
that adds a boolean to AlteredTableInfo and a function to wipe that
boolean between processing of subcommands.
> Incidentally, we need to shift this discussion to a new
> subject line; we have a working patch for the original subject of this
> thread, and are now discussing the related problem I found with
> attributes.
>
Both solutions have changes in callers of 'find_inheritance_children'. I
was working in the hope a unifiying solution would pop up naturally, but
so far it has not. Checking of the new AlteredTableInfo->relVisited
boolean could perhaps be pushed down into find_inheritance_children, if
multiple-'doing things' for the childs under a multiple-inheriting
relation is unwanted for every kind of action. It seems to me that the
question whether that is the case must be answered, before the current
working patch for coninhcount is 'ready for committer'.

regards,
Yeb Havinga