Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The original design idea was that coninhcount/conislocal would act >> exactly like attinhcount/attislocal do for multiply-inherited columns. >> Where did we fail to copy that logic?
> We didn't. That logic is broken, too. Uh, full stop there. If you think that the multiply-inherited column logic is wrong, it's you that is mistaken --- or at least you're going to have to do a lot more than just assert that you don't like it. We spent a *lot* of time hashing that behavior out, back around 7.3. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers