Re: BUG #6489: Alter table with composite type/table

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:19:14PM +0100, Rikard Pavelic wrote:
>> On 13.3.2012. 20:49, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> > I personally think it's an oversight. This was just discussed a
>> > couple of days ago here:
>> > http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Altering-a-table-with-a-rowtype-column-td5544844.html
>> >
>> > The server is blocking the alter-not-null-with-default because it's
>> > assuming that the default should be applied to dependent (foreign)
>> > tables implementing the type as a field. I think this assumption is
>> > totally bogus because composite types defaults get applied to the
>> > type, not to member fields and therefore a default has no meaning in
>> > that context. I think the TODO should read to relax the check
>> > essentially.
>> >
>> > merlin
>> >
>>
>> I agree.
>> TODO: alter table-type columns according to attribute type rules.
>> Enforce only TYPE features and ignore TABLE features when altering composite table-types.
>>
>> While I'm making up TODO's, my favorite one: support recursive types.
>
> Should we add this TODO? I am confused by the text above though.

I think so, but you should read the referenced thread for some
background -- especially Tom's comments. What's missing is a
consensus on how defaults and tables-as-rowtypes interact; and before
working on a TODO that should be established.

merlin