On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> writes: >> (2009/12/30 10:38), Robert Haas wrote: >>> No longer applies. Can you rebase? > >> The attached patch is the rebased revision. > > I'm not really impressed with this patch, because it will reject > perfectly legitimate multiple-inheritance cases (ie, cases where there's > more than one inheritance path from the same parent). This works fine > at the moment: [...] > I don't think that protecting against cases where things won't work > is an adequate reason for breaking cases that do work.
Upthread you appeared to be endorsing what KaiGai has implemented here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00147.php Rereading this a few times, perhaps you meant that we should prohibit renaming an ancestor when one of its descendents has a second and distinct ancestor, but the email you actually sent reads as if you were endorsing a blanket prohibition when attinhcount > 1. Can you clarify? Thanks, ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
