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)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <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: | 2010-01-04 18:19:55 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071001041019t7dca90b3x3017600a9b3f9892@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/1/3 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>>> if (number_of_attribute_origin(myrelid, oldattname) > 1)
>>> ereport(ERROR, ...);
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>
>> That sounds about right to me,
>
> It looks remarkably inefficient to me. Do you propose to search the
> entire database's inheritance tree to derive that number? And do it
> over again at each child table? The method I suggested would allow the
> necessary information to be extracted during the initial search for
> child tables, which we have to do anyway.
I haven't read the code in enough detail to have an educated opinion
about whether that would induce enough overhead to be worth worrying
about it, so I will refrain from comment on this until I have done my
homework.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-01-04 18:28:52 | Re: pg_migrator issues |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-01-04 18:12:46 | Re: pg_migrator issues |