Re: Overhaul of type attributes modification - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers
From | Dave Page |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Overhaul of type attributes modification |
Date | |
Msg-id | CA+OCxoynN837bnZBiR6uKUCtVS_cLnyyQ7goEfRzaEdow2pf=w@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Overhaul of type attributes modification (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>) |
Responses |
Re: Overhaul of type attributes modification
(Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>)
|
List | pgadmin-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 15:29 +0100, Thom Brown wrote: >> On 11 July 2011 15:21, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 01:05 +0100, Thom Brown wrote: >> >> On 9 July 2011 23:58, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >> >> > I've found a corner-case bug btw, which requires a tiny amendment. >> >> > But I'm also rebasing the patch for current master and 1.14_patches >> >> > (or whatever it's called), so you'll get these shortly >> >> >> >> Okay, here are the two rebased patches, both with the extra fix: >> >> >> >> Patch for REL-1_14_0_PATCHES: >> >> update_composite_type_attributes_sql_v2_rebased_1.14.patch >> >> >> >> Patch for master: update_composite_type_attributes_sql_v2_rebased_master.patch >> >> >> > >> > Thanks. Can't reproduce the bugs I found earlier, but found a new one. >> > >> > Suppose the following type: >> > >> > CREATE TYPE s1.ty3 AS >> > (c1 uuid, >> > c2 uuid); >> > >> > If I remove the first element, the SQL textbox is empty. It will >> > probably help you to know that I get the same behaviour when I delete >> > the three first elements on a 4-elements type, but not if I delete less >> > than three for this type. >> > >> > Sorry. Hope you won't kill me next time we meet :) >> >> No, that's not a bug. That's something I changed. This is what I >> posted before: >> >> "I've moved the various checks (such as ensuring there are at least 2 >> attributes) out of the block for creating a type so that the same >> rules apply to modifying types. This is because you shouldn't be able >> to modify a type so that there are less than 2 attributes." >> > > Oh OK, you're definitely right. Sorry about this. > > I don't like the checks but, if they were already there, it makes sense > to apply them on creation and alteration of a type. > >> If my assumption is flawed, please feel free to remove that part of >> the change. In fact I'm wondering if we should have that restriction >> for either case (CREATE and ALTER) since you can actually create >> composite types with no sub-types within them. I just wanted to unify >> the logic between the two. >> > > And that's a good idea. > > Well, your patch seems good to me. I've commited the bug fix (on the > collation clause) on the 1.14 master, and the complete patch on the > master branch. The patch is pretty invasive for something that's not a > bugfix, so I don't commit the complete patch to the 1.14 branch. Dave > and Thom, maybe you have a different opinion on this? I'd rather keep it for master only. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
pgadmin-hackers by date: