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 14:11:00 |
Message-ID: | 25688.1280499060@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Henk Enting <h(dot)d(dot)enting(at)mgrid(dot)net> wrote:
>> We ran into a problem on 9.0beta3 with check constraints using table
>> inheritance in a multi-level hierarchy with multiple inheritance.
> Thanks for the report. This bug also appears to exist in 8.4; I'm not
> sure yet how far back it goes. I'm not so sure your proposed patch is
> the right fix, though; it seems like it ought to be the job of
> AddRelationNewConstraints() and MergeWithExistingConstraint() to make
> sure that the right thing happens, here.
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?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-30 14:19:06 | Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-30 13:45:30 | Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance |