From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Changing the default value of an inherited column |
Date: | 2001-04-02 17:27:06 |
Message-ID: | 8427.986232426@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Well, we *do* have a syntax for specifying a new default (the same one
>> that worked pre-7.0 and does now again). I guess what you are proposing
>> is the rule "If conflicting default values are inherited from multiple
>> parents that each define the same column name, then an error is reported
>> unless the child table redeclares the column and specifies a new default
>> to override the inherited ones".
> This was the idea. If it's to complicated to do now, let's at least keep
> it in mind.
You and Nathan appear to like it, and no one else has objected.
I shall make it so.
Philip: the rule that pg_dump needs to apply w.r.t. defaults for
inherited fields is that if an inherited field has a default and
either (a) no parent table supplies a default, or (b) any parent
table supplies a default different from the child's, then pg_dump
had better emit the child field explicitly.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-04-02 17:59:11 | Update HISTORY/release.sgml |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-04-02 17:20:43 | Re: Re: Indexes vs indices |