On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
>> (2009/12/30 10:38), Robert Haas wrote:
>>> No longer applies. Can you rebase?
>> The attached patch is the rebased revision.
> I'm not really impressed with this patch, because it will reject
> perfectly legitimate multiple-inheritance cases (ie, cases where there's
> more than one inheritance path from the same parent). This works fine
> at the moment:
> I don't think that protecting against cases where things won't work
> is an adequate reason for breaking cases that do work.
Upthread you appeared to be endorsing what KaiGai has implemented here:
Rereading this a few times, perhaps you meant that we should prohibit
renaming an ancestor when one of its descendents has a second and
distinct ancestor, but the email you actually sent reads as if you
were endorsing a blanket prohibition when attinhcount > 1. Can you
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-01-03 15:00:19|
|Subject: Re: psql tab completion for DO blocks|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-01-03 14:28:29|
|Subject: Re: invalid UTF-8 via pl/perl|