Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think the most straightforward and reliable fix for this would be to
>>> forbid recursive containment of a rowtype in itself --- ie, the first
>>> ALTER should have been rejected. Can anyone think of a situation where
>>> it would be sane to allow such a thing?
>> Well, maybe. In fact, probably. That's like asking in C if it's sane
>> to have a structure to contain a pointer back to itself, which of
>> course it is. That said, if it doesn't work properly, it should
>> probably be disabled until it does.
> hm, you can work around lack of above at present using two vs one types:
> postgres=# create table b ();
> postgres=# create table c ();
> postgres=# alter table b add c c;
> postgres=# alter table c add b b;
Well, that'd have to be disallowed too under what I have in mind.
Indirect recursion is no safer than direct. If you try
alter table b add k serial;
at this point, you'll get the same crash or failure as for the direct
recursion case.
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
