| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2010-01-28 15:46:44 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f071001280746j53e5383ev63254e041072d5a5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/1/27 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> Hmm, indeed, this logic (V3/V5) is busted.
>
> The idea of V4 patch can also handle this case correctly, although it
> is lesser in performance.
> I wonder whether it is really unacceptable cost in performance, or not.
> Basically, I assume ALTER TABLE RENAME/TYPE is not frequent operations,
> and I don't think this bugfix will damage to the reputation of PostgreSQL.
>
> Where should we go on the next?
Isn't the problem here just that the following comment is 100% wrong?
/*
* Unlike find_all_inheritors(), we need to walk on
child relations
* that have diamond inheritance tree, because this
function has to
* return correct expected inhecount to the caller.
*/
It seems to me that the right solution here is to just add one more
argument to find_all_inheritors(), something like List
**expected_inh_count.
Am I missing something?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-28 15:46:47 | Re: pgsql: Define INADDR_NONE on Solaris when it's missing. |
| Previous Message | Tim Bunce | 2010-01-28 15:46:12 | Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl UPDATED [PATCH] |