Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns
Date: 2010-01-03 14:53:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 HaasDate: 2010-01-03 15:00:19
Subject: Re: psql tab completion for DO blocks
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-01-03 14:28:29
Subject: Re: invalid UTF-8 via pl/perl

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group