Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The original design idea was that coninhcount/conislocal would act
>> exactly like attinhcount/attislocal do for multiply-inherited columns.
>> Where did we fail to copy that logic?
> We didn't. That logic is broken, too.
Uh, full stop there. If you think that the multiply-inherited column
logic is wrong, it's you that is mistaken --- or at least you're going
to have to do a lot more than just assert that you don't like it.
We spent a *lot* of time hashing that behavior out, back around 7.3.
regards, tom lane
