From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: ADD/DROP CONSTRAINT and inheritance |
Date: | 2001-05-24 03:34:06 |
Message-ID: | ECEHIKNFIMMECLEBJFIGAEKCCAAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > I'm not sure what you mean here, Tom - I meant that the ONLY
> keyword could
> > be optional.
>
> The current gram.y code allows either ALTER TABLE foo ONLY or ALTER
> TABLE foo* for all forms of ALTER ... with the default interpretation
> being the latter.
Oops - ok, I didn't notice that...hmmm...maybe I should check my patch for
that before Bruce commits it...
> > At the moment we have:
> > * ADD CONSTRAINT does not propagate
>
> I doubt you will find anyone who's willing to argue that that's not a
> bug --- specifically, AlterTableAddConstraint()'s lack of inheritance
> recursion like its siblings have. Feel free to fix it.
It was next on my list. However, I don't want to step on Stephan's toes...
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-24 04:04:39 | Re: More pgindent follies |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-05-24 03:24:20 | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |