From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DROP COLUMN misbehaviour with multiple inheritance |
Date: | 2002-09-23 13:41:40 |
Message-ID: | 20913.1032788500@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera kirjutas E, 23.09.2002 kell 10:30:
>> The former drops f1 from c, while the latter does not. It's
>> inconsistent.
> But this is what _should_ happen.
On what grounds do you claim that? I agree with Alvaro: it's
inconsistent to have ONLY produce different effects depending on
the order in which you issue the commands.
> It is quite unreasonable to expect that order of commands makes no
> difference.
Why?
I'll agree that it's not an overriding argument, but it is something
to shoot for if we can. And I'm not seeing the argument on the other
side.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-09-23 13:43:44 | Postgresql Automatic vacuum |
Previous Message | Aaron Held | 2002-09-23 13:24:38 | Re: Monitoring a Query |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-23 13:53:08 | Re: DROP COLUMN misbehaviour with multiple inheritance |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-23 13:34:22 | Re: Implementation of LIMIT on DELETE and UPDATE statements |