> > Seems like a bad idea to
> > me. But as long as the default is to propagate these changes, I'm not
> > really eager to prohibit DBAs from doing the other. Who's to say what's
> > a misuse of inheritance and what's not...
>
> At the moment we have:
>
> * ADD CONSTRAINT does not propagate
>
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure what you mean here, Tom - I meant that the ONLY keyword could
> be optional.
The current gram.y code allows either ALTER TABLE foo ONLY or ALTER
TABLE foo* for all forms of ALTER ... with the default interpretation
being the lat
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> For the add/drop constraint clauses would it be an idea to change the syntax
>> to:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE [ ONLY ] x ADD CONSTRAINT x;
>> ALTER TABLE [ ONLY ] x DROP CONSTRAINT x;
If the patch is coded
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> For the add/drop constraint clauses would it be an idea to change the syntax
> to:
>
> ALTER TABLE [ ONLY ] x ADD CONSTRAINT x;
> ALTER TABLE [ ONLY ] x DROP CONSTRAINT x;
>
> So that people can specify whether the constraint should be inher
