Re: Review of patch renaming constraints

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review of patch renaming constraints
Date: 2012-01-20 05:09:24
Message-ID: 1327036164.5983.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On fre, 2012-01-20 at 09:08 +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> > Umm, conisonly is set as false from primary key entries in
> pg_constraint.
> And primary keys are anyways not inherited. So why is the conisonly
> field interfering in rename? Seems quite orthogonal to me.

In the past, each kind of constraint was either always inherited or
always not, implicitly. Now, for check constraints we can choose what
we want, and in the future, perhaps we will want to choose for primary
keys as well. So having conisonly is really a good step into that
future, and we should use it uniformly.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikhil Sontakke 2012-01-20 06:02:25 Re: Review of patch renaming constraints
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-01-20 05:07:06 Re: JSON for PG 9.2