Re: Re: Changing the default value of an inherited column
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Changing the default value of an inherited column |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28125.986085369@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Changing the default value of an inherited column (ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers)) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) writes: > Of course PG is different from any O-O language. I don't know if PG > has an equivalent to the "base-class context". I suppose PG has a long > history of merging like-named members, and that the issue is just of > the details of how the merge happens. Yes; AFAICT that behavior goes back to PostQUEL. It was partially disabled (without adequate discussion I guess) in 7.0, but it's been around for a long time. >> 4. All relevant constraints from all the column specifications will >> be applied. In particular, if any of the specifications includes NOT >> NULL, the resulting column will be NOT NULL. (But the current >> implementation does not support inheritance of UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY >> constraints, and I do not have time to add that now.) > Sounds like a TODO item... There's something about it in TODO already. There are some definitional issues though (should uniqueness be across ALL tables of the inheritance hierarchy, or per-table? If the former, how would we implement it?). I believe you can find past discussions about this in the archives. > Do all the triggers of the base tables get applied, to be run one after > another? Triggers aren't inherited either. Possibly they should be, but again I think some forethought is needed... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: