On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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.
I think so, but you should read the referenced thread for some background -- especially Tom's comments. What's missing is a consensus on how defaults and tables-as-rowtypes interact; and before working on a TODO that should be established. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
