> * Give an error, same as if "ONLY foo" had been written. > > * Assume the user really wants recursion, and do it anyway. > > The second seems more user-friendly but also seems to violate the > principle of least surprise. Anyone have an opinion about what to do?
I really prefer the former. If for some reason it were to become available that they could alter only foo for some strange reason we haven't come up with yet (statistics related perhaps?), we would certainly need to throw an error on the other 'alter table' statements at that point in time. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
