On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM, KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: > (2010/01/27 23:29), Robert Haas wrote: >> >> 2010/1/27 KaiGai Kohei<kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: >>> >>> The attached patch is revised one based on the V3 approach. >>> The only difference from V3 is that it also applies checks on the >>> AT_AlterColumnType option, not only renameatt(). >> >> I think I was clear about what the next step was for this patch in my >> previous email, but let me try again. >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg02407.php >> >> See also Tom's comments here: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg00110.php >> >> I don't believe that either Tom or I are prepared to commit a patch >> based on this approach, at least not unless someone makes an attempt >> to do it the other way and finds an even more serious problem. If >> you're not interested in rewriting the patch along the lines Tom >> suggested, then we should just mark this as Returned with Feedback and >> move on. > > The V3/V5 patch was the rewritten one based on the Tom's comment, as is. > It counts the expected inhcount at the first find_all_inheritors() time > at once, and it compares the pg_attribute.attinhcount. > (In actually, find_all_inheritors() does not have a capability to count > the number of merged from a common origin, so I newly defined the > find_all_inheritors_with_inhcount().) > > Am I missing something?
Err... I'm not sure. I thought I understood what the different versions of this patch were doing, but apparently I'm all confused. I'll take another look at this. Bernd (or anyone), feel free to take a look in parallel. More eyes would be helpful... ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers