Re: [HACKERS] Column ADDing issues

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Column ADDing issues
Date: 2000-01-27 17:41:45
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0001262020480.416-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2000-01-25, Tom Lane mentioned:

> > Everything has its order and it's not like the inheritance as such is
> > broken.
>
> Yes, a whole bunch of stuff is broken after this happens. Go back and
> consult the archives --- or maybe Chris Bitmead will fill you in; he's
> got plenty of scars to show for this set of problems. (All I recall
> offhand is that pg_dump and reload can fail to generate a working
> database.) The bottom line is that it would be a lot nicer if column c
> had the same column position in both the parent table and the child
> table(s).

This should be fixed in pg_dump by infering something via the oids of the
pg_attribute entries. No need to mess up the backend for it.

Maybe pg_dump should optionally dump schemas in terms of insert into
pg_something commands rather than actual DDL. ;)

>
> I suggest you be very cautious about messing with ALTER TABLE until you
> understand why inheritance makes it such a headache ;-)

I'm just trying to get the defaults and constraints working. If
inheritance stays broken the way it previously was, it's beyond my
powers. But I get the feeling that people rather not alter their tables
unless they have *perfect* alter table commands. I don't feel like arguing
with them, they'll just have to do without then.

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-01-27 17:41:55 Re: [HACKERS] Column ADDing issues
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-01-27 16:37:24 Re: [SQL] RE: [GENERAL] Problem with SELECT on large negative INT4