| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |