On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:19:14PM +0100, Rikard Pavelic wrote: > 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.
Should we add this TODO? I am confused by the text above though. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
