(2014/02/20 19:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2014/02/20 15:47), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> Although my concerns here are only two points,
>> unanticipated application and "maintenancibility". I gave a
>> consideration on these issues again.
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood what you mean by "unanticipated application".
>
>> Then, I think it could be enough by giving feedback to operators
>> for the first issue.
>>
>> =# ALTER TABLE parent ADD CHECK (tempmin < tempmax),
>> ALTER tempmin SET NOT NULL,
>> ALTER tempmin SET DEFAULT 0;
>> 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?
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
