Yeb Havinga <yebhavi...@gmail.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I agree, this idea seems completely nuts. It is *not* reasonable for >> an action applied to a child to change the definition of the parent.
> Also not in the case that we're talking about here? > A.a_column B.a_column > | / > v v > C.a_column > C inherits from A and B. > The user wants to change a_column to better_name. Well, if A and B inherited the column from a common ancestor, he can easily do that. If not, maybe he should have thought harder before he started. I do NOT agree that issuing a rename against C is a sane way of dealing with this. > This doesn't seem nuts to me. You're in the minority. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers