(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
