Robert Treat writes:
> I've never been one for actively going against the sql standards (which
> this case would seem to do) so if it is done lets make sure we add
> documentation to point out that we aren't compliant on this issue.
This could be a reasonable place to hook in the "SQL flagger"
(n
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 19:27, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Should we remove this error check, thereby effectively making
> > zero-column tables first-class citizens?
>
> Yes.
>
I've never been one for actively going against the sql standards (which
this case would seem to do)
Tom Lane writes:
> Should we remove this error check, thereby effectively making
> zero-column tables first-class citizens?
Yes.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please se
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just out of curiosity, do any of the SQL specs deal with 0 column
> tables? I can't recall any dbms supporting a create table command that
> didn't require at least 1 column.
Actually, in SQL92 11.17 I find
3) C shall be a column of T and C sha
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 03:43, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 02:56 AM 13/12/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >if it's not the only column in Amy's table, Beth can drop her type
> >and Amy's column along with it.
>
> I keep forgetting PG's inheritance features. In a non-inheritance system, I
> would vote f
At 02:56 AM 13/12/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
if it's not the only column in Amy's table, Beth can drop her type
and Amy's column along with it.
I keep forgetting PG's inheritance features. In a non-inheritance system, I
would vote for forcing a one column table to be dropped. For PG, I think
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 12:31 AM 13/12/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amy does CREATE TABLE foo(f1 beths_type);
>> Beth now cannot drop her type beths_type.
>> In most circles this would be called a denial of service.
> Seems like a feature - if beth made the type public, sh
At 12:31 AM 13/12/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Amy does CREATE TABLE foo(f1 beths_type);
Beth now cannot drop her type beths_type.
In most circles this would be called a denial of service.
Seems like a feature - if beth made the type public, she has to deal with
fame. I don't see
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 04:08 PM 12/12/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should we remove this error check, thereby effectively making
>> zero-column tables first-class citizens?
> The other option is to disallow the steps that resulted in the zero-column
> table in the first
At 04:08 PM 12/12/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Should we remove this error check, thereby effectively making
zero-column tables first-class citizens?
I should wait 2 minutes before hitting 'send'.
The other option is to disallow the steps that resulted in the zero-column
table in the first plac
At 04:08 PM 12/12/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Should we remove this error check, thereby effectively making
zero-column tables first-class citizens?
It's a bit daft, but I suspect it's the way to go. There has to be a
non-zero chance that a future version of pg_dump may want to add attributes
Tom Lane kirjutas R, 13.12.2002 kell 02:08:
> I was bemused to notice that pg_dump is currently unable to dump the
> regression database. The domain regression test leaves an empty table
> (one with zero columns), which causes pg_dump to produce
>
> --
> -- TOC entry 172 (OID 675837)
> -- Name: d
I was bemused to notice that pg_dump is currently unable to dump the
regression database. The domain regression test leaves an empty table
(one with zero columns), which causes pg_dump to produce
--
-- TOC entry 172 (OID 675837)
-- Name: domnotnull; Type: TABLE; Schema: public; Owner: postgres
--
13 matches
Mail list logo