On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:40:31AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from rikard.pavelic's message of sáb feb 25 10:23:18 -0300 2012: > > > But I would expect second alter to pass and enforcing not null and default > > when adding this column in table and not enforcing not null and default when > > adding into composite type for another table. > > > > Is this by design, oversight or a TODO? > > I think this is more a TODO than anything else. Last year we discussed > something similar to this -- twice, even; IIRC, one was buried somewhere > in the discussion about "variant" types, if you want to search the > pgsql-hackers archives. As far as I recall, discussion died mainly > because no one had the time and/or energy to pursue it, not because it > was impossible.
Can you suggest some TODo text? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
