On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 10:44 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
If we add that ownership check, we'll protect some operations on the
type. The
cost is localized divergence from our principle that types have no
usage
restrictions. I'm of the opinion that it's not worth introducing that
policy
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:26:01AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 19:34 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:44:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:57 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
* Users can CREATE TABLE OF on a type they don't
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:44:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:57 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
* Inheriting from a typed table blocks further type DDL
CREATE TYPE t AS (x int);
CREATE TABLE parent OF t;
CREATE TABLE child () INHERITS (parent);
ALTER TYPE
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:44:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:57 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
* Inheriting from a typed table blocks further type DDL
CREATE TYPE t AS (x int);
CREATE TABLE
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 19:34 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:44:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:57 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
* Users can CREATE TABLE OF on a type they don't own
This in turns blocks the owner's ability to alter the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:23:49AM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I guess my gut feeling is that it would make more sense to forbid it
outright for 9.1, and we
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:20:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I tweaked the comments accordingly, and also reverted your change to
the error message, because I don't want to introduce new terminology
here that we're not using anywhere else.
FWIW, the term stand-alone composite type appears
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:20:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I tweaked the comments accordingly, and also reverted your change to
the error message, because I don't want to introduce new terminology
here that we're not using
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
FWIW, the term stand-alone composite type appears twice in our
documentation.
Hmm, OK. Anyone else have an opinion on the relative merits of:
ERROR: type stuff is not a
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
FWIW, the term stand-alone composite type appears twice in our
documentation.
Hmm, OK. Anyone else have an
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What about inverting the message phrasing, ie
ERROR: type stuff must not be a table's row type
It also can't be a view's row type, a sequence's row type, a foreign
table's row
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What about inverting the message phrasing, ie
ERROR: type stuff must not be a table's row type
It also can't be
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:57 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
* Table row types used in typed tables vs. ALTER TABLE
This item was addressed, but the other ones were not, I think.
* Inheriting from a typed table blocks further type DDL
CREATE TYPE t AS (x int);
CREATE TABLE parent OF t;
CREATE
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:44:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:57 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
* Users can CREATE TABLE OF on a type they don't own
This in turns blocks the owner's ability to alter the table/type. However,
we
already have this hazard with
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:57:29PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
While looking at the typed table/pg_upgrade problem, I ran into a few
smaller
problems in the area. ?I'm not envisioning a need for much code shift to fix
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I guess my gut feeling is that it would make more sense to forbid it
outright for 9.1, and we can look at relaxing that restriction later
if we're so inclined.
Much as with the problem Tom fixed in commit
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:23:49AM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I guess my gut feeling is that it would make more sense to forbid it
outright for 9.1, and we can look at relaxing that restriction later
if we're so inclined.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
While looking at the typed table/pg_upgrade problem, I ran into a few smaller
problems in the area. I'm not envisioning a need for much code shift to fix
them, but there are a few points of policy.
* Table row types used in
While looking at the typed table/pg_upgrade problem, I ran into a few smaller
problems in the area. I'm not envisioning a need for much code shift to fix
them, but there are a few points of policy.
* Table row types used in typed tables vs. ALTER TABLE
As previously noted:
CREATE TABLE t ();
19 matches
Mail list logo
