On 13.3.2012. 20:49, Merlin Moncure wrote: > I personally think it's an oversight. This was just discussed a > couple of days ago here: > http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Altering-a-table-with-a-rowtype-column-td5544844.html > > The server is blocking the alter-not-null-with-default because it's > assuming that the default should be applied to dependent (foreign) > tables implementing the type as a field. I think this assumption is > totally bogus because composite types defaults get applied to the > type, not to member fields and therefore a default has no meaning in > that context. I think the TODO should read to relax the check > essentially. > > merlin >
I agree. TODO: alter table-type columns according to attribute type rules. Enforce only TYPE features and ignore TABLE features when altering composite table-types. While I'm making up TODO's, my favorite one: support recursive types. Regards, Rikard -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
