| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE |
| Date: | 2012-04-11 18:31:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1334168971-sup-1877@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012:
> This patch removes the support for :
>
> ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b > 0);
>
> and uses
>
> ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK ONLY (b > 0);
>
> Is this what we want? Or we would want the earlier support in place for
> backward compatibility as well? We are actually introducing this in 9.2 so
> I guess we can remove this.
I'm not quite following that logic. I don't think support for the
previous syntax should be removed -- does it cause some serious problem?
> This is a much cleaner implementation and we might not even need the
> changes in pg_dump now because the pg_get_constraintdef can provide the
> info about the ONLY part too. So some cleanup can be done if needed.
>
> I know it's a bit late in the commitfest, but if this patch makes this
> feature more "complete", maybe we should consider...
>
> Thoughts?
Personally I don't think we should consider this for 9.2.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-11 18:45:50 | Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-11 18:29:25 | Re: Last gasp |