From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inherit support for foreign tables |
Date: | 2014-02-21 07:33:32 |
Message-ID: | 5307014C.4070605@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2014/02/21 15:23), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>>> NOTICE: Child foregn table child01 is affected.
>>>> NOTICE: Child foregn table child02 is affected
>>>> NOTICE: Child foregn table child03 rejected 'alter tempmin set
>>>> default'
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about this? It looks a bit too loud for me
>>>> though...
>>>
>>> I think that's a good idea.
>>
>> I just thought those messages would be shown for the user to readily
>> notice the changes of the structures of child tables that are foreign,
>> done by the recursive altering operation. But I overlooked the third
>> line:
>>
>> NOTICE: Child foregn table child03 rejected 'alter tempmin set
>> default'
>>
>> What does "rejected" in this message mean?
>
> It says that child03 had no ability to perform the requested
> action, in this case setting a default value. It might be better
> to reject ALTER on the parent as a whole when any children
> doesn't accept any action.
Now understood, thougn I'm not sure it's worth implementing such a
checking mechanism in the recursive altering operation...
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2014-02-21 08:01:48 | Re: inherit support for foreign tables |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-02-21 07:27:53 | Warning in pg_backup_archiver.c |