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
> e
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, 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:
>> > * Inheriting from a typed table blocks further type DDL
>> > CREATE TYPE t AS (x int);
>> > CREATE TABLE parent O
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);
> > A
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 the
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 ta
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 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;
> CR
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tom Lane 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,
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tom Lane 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 type...
Well, you could say "rela
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch 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
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch 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 composite type
> vs.
> ERROR: type stu
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch 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 anywhere e
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 Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Noah Misch 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 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 th
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:23:49AM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Noah Misch 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 Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Noah Misch 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
>> eb51af71f241e8cb199790de
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:57:29PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Noah Misch 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 the
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Noah Misch 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 typed tables
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
