Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> Yeb Havinga <yebhavi...@gmail.com> writes:
>> The root cause seems to center around multiple inheritance of the same
>> column without a common ancestor. Another way to approach the problem, is to
>> prevent the user to create a setup, i.e. when adding a column to B that
>> already exists in A, or when adding a inheritance relation A-C or B-c, if A
>> and B share column names. He could then get a hint he should add a common
>> ancestor with that column. This preemptively prevents problems with renames
>> and other changes.
> It also breaks compatibility with previous releases for no particular
> reason.
Well, if it were only a hint, and thus didn't actually "prevent"
anything, then it wouldn't be breaking compatibility. But I don't
like the idea much either. It would be extremely expensive, if not
impossible, to determine whether all parents having the similarly-named
column got it from the same common ancestor. (In particular, if the
user had previously ignored the hint, you could have situations where
there isn't a unique ancestor that the column can be traced to; then
what do you do?)
I think we'd be putting huge amounts of effort into a case that no more
than one or two people would ever hit.
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
