| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Some more information_schema issues |
| Date: | 2003-10-17 15:29:54 |
| Message-ID: | 3F900AF2.4030000@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>True. Btw., is there a particular value in pg_get_constraintdef always
>>printing double pairs of parentheses for CHECK constraints?
>
>
> No, but it will require some restructuring of the code to get rid of it
> safely (where "safely" is defined as "never omitting any parentheses
> that *are* necessary"). For the moment I'm willing to live with the
> ugliness. You could consider pretty-printing (pass true to
> pg_get_constraintdef) if you think visual appeal is better than
> assured correctness.
We could check the first character of the definition, and if it isn't a
left parenthesis, then we add parentheses.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-10-17 15:36:00 | Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-10-17 15:23:35 | Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum |