Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Henk Enting <h(dot)d(dot)enting(at)mgrid(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance
Date: 2010-07-30 14:23:27
Message-ID: 25996.1280499807@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The original design idea was that coninhcount/conislocal would act
>> exactly like attinhcount/attislocal do for multiply-inherited columns.
>> Where did we fail to copy that logic?

> We didn't.  That logic is broken, too.

Uh, full stop there.  If you think that the multiply-inherited column
logic is wrong, it's you that is mistaken --- or at least you're going
to have to do a lot more than just assert that you don't like it.
We spent a *lot* of time hashing that behavior out, back around 7.3.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-30 14:32:15
Subject: Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-30 14:19:06
Subject: Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group