From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns |
Date: | 2010-01-03 14:53:41 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071001030653s61ed59ddp784167c0783e716a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
>> (2009/12/30 10:38), Robert Haas wrote:
>>> No longer applies. Can you rebase?
>
>> The attached patch is the rebased revision.
>
> I'm not really impressed with this patch, because it will reject
> perfectly legitimate multiple-inheritance cases (ie, cases where there's
> more than one inheritance path from the same parent). This works fine
> at the moment:
[...]
> I don't think that protecting against cases where things won't work
> is an adequate reason for breaking cases that do work.
Upthread you appeared to be endorsing what KaiGai has implemented here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00147.php
Rereading this a few times, perhaps you meant that we should prohibit
renaming an ancestor when one of its descendents has a second and
distinct ancestor, but the email you actually sent reads as if you
were endorsing a blanket prohibition when attinhcount > 1. Can you
clarify?
Thanks,
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-03 15:00:19 | Re: psql tab completion for DO blocks |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-03 14:28:29 | Re: invalid UTF-8 via pl/perl |