(2014/02/21 15:23), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
NOTICE: Child foregn table child01 is affected.
NOTICE: Child foregn table child02 is affected
NOTICE: Child foregn table child03 rejected 'alter tempmin set
default'
What do you think about this? It looks a bit too loud for me
though...
I think that's a good idea.
I just thought those messages would be shown for the user to readily
notice the changes of the structures of child tables that are foreign,
done by the recursive altering operation. But I overlooked the third
line:
NOTICE: Child foregn table child03 rejected 'alter tempmin set
default'
What does "rejected" in this message mean?
It says that child03 had no ability to perform the requested
action, in this case setting a default value. It might be better
to reject ALTER on the parent as a whole when any children
doesn't accept any action.
Now understood, thougn I'm not sure it's worth implementing such a
checking mechanism in the recursive altering operation...
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
