Re: ADD/DROP INHERITS
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ADD/DROP INHERITS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16749.1149709314@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ADD/DROP INHERITS (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: ADD/DROP INHERITS
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> I thought we had agreed that the semantics of ADD INHERITS would be to >> reject the command if the child wasn't already suitable to be a child >> of the parent. > I didn't see any discussion like that and I find it pretty surprising. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere along the line. > But that's entirely inconsistent with the way inherited tables work in > general. I don't see any basis for that conclusion. The properties of a table are set when it's created and you need to do pretty explicit ALTERs to change them. We do not for example automatically make a unique index for a table when someone tries to reference a foreign key to a column set that doesn't already have such an index. In this situation, I think it's entirely reasonable to expect the user to do any needed ALTER ADD COLUMN, CONSTRAINT, etc commands before trying to attach a child table to a parent. Having the system do it for you offers no functionality gain, just a way to shoot yourself in the foot. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: