On 13.3.2012. 20:49, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> I personally think it's an oversight. This was just discussed a
> couple of days ago here:
> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Altering-a-table-with-a-rowtype-column-td5544844.html
>
> The server is blocking the alter-not-null-with-default because it's
> assuming that the default should be applied to dependent (foreign)
> tables implementing the type as a field. I think this assumption is
> totally bogus because composite types defaults get applied to the
> type, not to member fields and therefore a default has no meaning in
> that context. I think the TODO should read to relax the check
> essentially.
>
> merlin
>
I agree.
TODO: alter table-type columns according to attribute type rules.
Enforce only TYPE features and ignore TABLE features when altering composite table-types.
While I'm making up TODO's, my favorite one: support recursive types.
Regards,
Rikard