RE: ADD/DROP CONSTRAINT and inheritance

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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