| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mishandling of WCO constraints in direct foreign table modification |
| Date: | 2017-07-24 20:35:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaC3edVEFG6sTNg93OAj3b7V-VHjv0Y-cvybnrVuZiiYw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> I mean constraints derived from WITH CHECK OPTIONs specified for parent
> views. We use the words "WITH CHECK OPTION constraints" in comments in
> nodeModifyTable.c, so the expression "CHECK OPTION constrains" doesn't sound
> not that bad to me. (I used "CHECK OPTION", not "WITH CHECK OPTION",
> because we use "CHECK OPTION" a lot more in the documentation than "WITH
> CHECK OPTION".)
Yeah, it seems OK to me, too; if the consensus is otherwise, we also
have the option to change it later. Committed and back-patched as you
had it, but I removed a spurious comma.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-07-24 20:38:47 | Re: [PATCH] Pageinspect - add functions on GIN and GiST indexes from gevel |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2017-07-24 19:59:32 | Re: pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server |