Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could consider back-patching the attached to cover this, but
>> I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble, because I haven't
>> thought of any non-silly use-cases in the absence of domains
>> over composite. Com
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We could consider back-patching the attached to cover this, but
> I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble, because I haven't
> thought of any non-silly use-cases in the absence of domains
> over composite. Comments?
There are no real compl
I found out that altering a column's type does not play nicely with
domain constraints: tablecmds.c expects that only table constraints
could depend on a column. Now, it's easy to hit that with domains
over composite, so I propose to fix it in HEAD with the attached
patch. However, if you really