On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
> (2010/01/27 23:29), Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> 2010/1/27 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>:
>>>
>>> The attached patch is revised one based on the V3 approach.
>>> The only difference from V3 is that it also applies checks on the
>>> AT_AlterColumnType option, not only renameatt().
>>
>> I think I was clear about what the next step was for this patch in my
>> previous email, but let me try again.
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg02407.php
>>
>> See also Tom's comments here:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg00110.php
>>
>> I don't believe that either Tom or I are prepared to commit a patch
>> based on this approach, at least not unless someone makes an attempt
>> to do it the other way and finds an even more serious problem. If
>> you're not interested in rewriting the patch along the lines Tom
>> suggested, then we should just mark this as Returned with Feedback and
>> move on.
>
> The V3/V5 patch was the rewritten one based on the Tom's comment, as is.
> It counts the expected inhcount at the first find_all_inheritors() time
> at once, and it compares the pg_attribute.attinhcount.
> (In actually, find_all_inheritors() does not have a capability to count
> the number of merged from a common origin, so I newly defined the
> find_all_inheritors_with_inhcount().)
>
> Am I missing something?
Err... I'm not sure. I thought I understood what the different
versions of this patch were doing, but apparently I'm all confused.
I'll take another look at this.
Bernd (or anyone), feel free to take a look in parallel. More eyes
would be helpful...
...Robert