| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Dunlop <chris(at)onthe(dot)net(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with dump/restore and inheritance |
| Date: | 2006-02-22 15:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | 11787.1140621111@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Chris Dunlop <chris(at)onthe(dot)net(dot)au> writes:
> E.g. using the script below, the 'bar.f1' column in the 'new'
> database ends up with a 'not null' constraint that isn't present
> in the 'orig' database.
> create table foo (f1 integer not null);
> create table bar () inherits(foo);
> alter table bar alter column f1 drop not null;
The general consensus is that the above should be illegal, ie, the ALTER
should have been rejected. Otherwise you would have a situation where a
"SELECT FROM foo" could return nulls, violating the very clear contract
of that table. We have not got around to enforcing this yet, but it's
on the TODO. I don't see it as a pg_dump bug that it's unable to
reproduce an invalid situation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Dunlop | 2006-02-22 22:48:44 | Re: Problem with dump/restore and inheritance |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2006-02-22 13:17:47 | Re: Pg-restore |