> and two macros:
>
> RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN(relid);
> AlterTableDoSomething(childrel,...);
> RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN_END;
>
> (this seems more straightforward than passing the text of the function
> call as a macro parameter).
The above all looks fine. The other stuff I wouldn't really know a
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 20:38, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> John Gray wrote:
> >
> > and two macros:
> >
> > RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN(relid);
> > AlterTableDoSomething(childrel,...);
> > RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN_END;
> >
> > (this seems more straightforward than passing the text of the function
> > call as
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 20:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> John Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sequences still seem to work after they've had attributes renamed, but I
> > see little value in being able to do this. Is it OK to prohibit the
> > renaming of sequence columns?
>
> That seems like an error
John Gray wrote:
>
> and two macros:
>
> RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN(relid);
> AlterTableDoSomething(childrel,...);
> RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN_END;
>
> (this seems more straightforward than passing the text of the function
> call as a macro parameter).
>
Suggestion:
RECURSE_OVER_CHILDREN(inh, relid)
John Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sequences still seem to work after they've had attributes renamed, but I
> see little value in being able to do this. Is it OK to prohibit the
> renaming of sequence columns?
That seems like an error to me. Setting defaults, constraints, etc on a
sequence
Dear all,
I've been looking at tidying up some of the repeated code which now
resides in tablecmds.c - in particular the ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN
code.
Most of these routines share common code:
1) AccessExclusive Lock on relation.
2) Relation is a table, not a system table, user is owner.
3)
