Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-20 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 21:22, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: There is no alternative, unless you want the command to be non-roll-back-able. Well, you can do a cluster-type table duplication... Thats still double the disk space, although that has the nice side effect of not requiring a

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-20 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Thats still double the disk space, although that has the nice side effect of not requiring a vacuum. Also, a rollback after 99% of the updates have been done will waste no diskspace... Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, I suppose you have indirectly confirmed that user triggers, etc. should NOT fire on for the data update. I didn't see anything in the spec that said one way or the other. Actually, I didn't mean to take a position one way or the other. You could

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 09:40, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, I suppose you have indirectly confirmed that user triggers, etc. should NOT fire on for the data update. I didn't see anything in the spec that said one way or the other. Actually, I didn't mean to

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Rod Taylor writes: Anyway, I suppose you have indirectly confirmed that user triggers, etc. should NOT fire on for the data update. I didn't see anything in the spec that said one way or the other. The spec doesn't say that they fire, so that means that they don't fire. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:52:14AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 09:40, Tom Lane wrote: Do we want them to? If we don't mind them being executed, it is far easier to: - alter table structure - Add all new constraints (without confirming their correctness at that time) -

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - alter table structure - Add all new constraints (without confirming their correctness at that time) - update table contents via an SPI call to UPDATE WHERE column IS NULL The where clause would avoid issues with inherited data being overwritten when

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 10:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:52:14AM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 09:40, Tom Lane wrote: Do we want them to? If we don't mind them being executed, it is far easier to: - alter table structure - Add all new

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Rod Taylor
Anyway, I suppose you have indirectly confirmed that user triggers, etc. should NOT fire on for the data update. I didn't see anything in the spec that said one way or the other. The spec doesn't say that they fire, so that means that they don't fire. Sounds like a definitive answer to

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 10:42, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 10:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Sorry, I haven't read the spec, but what happens when there is a default value already and it's not NULL? Are tuples where column =3D default updated? Are

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right now if the column exists in the child table, the add column is rejected. I assume that will remain. Have you actually tried it? regression=# create table p1 (f1 int); CREATE TABLE regression=# create table c1 (f2 int) inherits(p1); CREATE TABLE

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 15:00, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right now if the column exists in the child table, the add column is rejected. I assume that will remain. Have you actually tried it? I used different datatypes which, of course, was the wrong test. When

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-19 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
There is no alternative, unless you want the command to be non-roll-back-able. Well, you can do a cluster-type table duplication... Someone can make it more efficient in regards to constraint checks, etc. in the future if they want -- I don't intend to. It'd be nice if you at least

Re: [HACKERS] add column .. default

2003-06-18 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the update I intend to use double space, as if the user did those items as individual commands within the same transaction. There is no alternative, unless you want the command to be non-roll-back-able. Someone can make it more efficient in regards to