Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Date: 2010-01-03T14:53:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> writes:
>> (2009/12/30 10:38), Robert Haas wrote:
>>> No longer applies.  Can you rebase?
>
>> The attached patch is the rebased revision.
>
> I'm not really impressed with this patch, because it will reject
> perfectly legitimate multiple-inheritance cases (ie, cases where there's
> more than one inheritance path from the same parent).  This works fine
> at the moment:
[...]
> I don't think that protecting against cases where things won't work
> is an adequate reason for breaking cases that do work.

Upthread you appeared to be endorsing what KaiGai has implemented here:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00147.php

Rereading this a few times, perhaps you meant that we should prohibit
renaming an ancestor when one of its descendents has a second and
distinct ancestor, but the email you actually sent reads as if you
were endorsing a blanket prohibition when attinhcount > 1.  Can you
clarify?

Thanks,

...Robert