Yeb Havinga <yebhavi...@gmail.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree, this idea seems completely nuts. It is *not* reasonable for
>> an action applied to a child to change the definition of the parent.
> Also not in the case that we're talking about here?
> A.a_column B.a_column
> | /
> v v
> C.a_column
> C inherits from A and B.
> The user wants to change a_column to better_name.
Well, if A and B inherited the column from a common ancestor, he can
easily do that. If not, maybe he should have thought harder before he
started. I do NOT agree that issuing a rename against C is a sane way
of dealing with this.
> This doesn't seem nuts to me.
You're in the minority.
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
