Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints
Date: 2011-12-19 13:13:04
Message-ID: CA+TgmoacgSA0h-sBexgfuVyPLsGH2Of6X+y+zN2k_tPV0kL3iA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah.  Nikhil, Alex, this is the merged patch.  Have a look that it
> still works for you (particularly the pg_dump bits) and I'll commit it.
> I adjusted the regression test a bit too.

It seems hard to believe that ATExecDropConstraint() doesn't need any
adjustment.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-12-19 13:17:44 Re: archive_keepalive_command
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-12-19 13:06:04 Re: why do we need create tuplestore for each fetch?