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

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:40:31AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from rikard.pavelic's message of sáb feb 25 10:23:18 -0300 2012:
>
> > But I would expect second alter to pass and enforcing not null and default
> > when adding this column in table and not enforcing not null and default when
> > adding into composite type for another table.
> >
> > Is this by design, oversight or a TODO?
>
> I think this is more a TODO than anything else. Last year we discussed
> something similar to this -- twice, even; IIRC, one was buried somewhere
> in the discussion about "variant" types, if you want to search the
> pgsql-hackers archives. As far as I recall, discussion died mainly
> because no one had the time and/or energy to pursue it, not because it
> was impossible.

Can you suggest some TODo text?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +