| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove arbitrary ALTER TABLE .. ADD COLUMN restriction. |
| Date: | 2011-01-26 20:16:07 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinR4Fi9Tf3JTUjCY6-cdp0ozuigmZ98_Le6HEss@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think you're conflating the table with its row type, and I'd like to
>> see some prior writing indicating otherwise.
>
> I will agree that a language lawyer could argue that a table rowtype
> doesn't have to act like a separately-declared composite type, but
> that surely doesn't meet the POLA.
Well, actually, what I thought was that the rowtype *should* act
exactly like a separately-declared composite rowtype. Which is to
say, it shouldn't have a default, because a separately-declared
composite rowtype *can't have a default*. If that's not the consensus
position, so be it, but it made sense to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-26 20:48:19 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove arbitrary ALTER TABLE .. ADD COLUMN restriction. |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-26 19:01:33 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove arbitrary ALTER TABLE .. ADD COLUMN restriction. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dan Ports | 2011-01-26 20:16:23 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-26 20:10:23 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |