Re: CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CHECK NO INHERIT syntax
Date: 2012-07-19 13:40:56
Message-ID: CA+TgmobE9n2qwzPN3nPpOK-901_Ue+P9iNAPM2wVHqWEO1wOQg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Sorry to raise this once again, but I still find this CHECK NO INHERIT
> syntax to a bit funny. We are currently using something like
>
> CHECK NO INHERIT (foo > 0)
>
> But we already have a different syntax for attaching attributes to
> constraints (NOT DEFERRABLE, NOT VALID, etc.), so it would make more
> sense to have
>
> CHECK (foo > 0) NO INHERIT
>
> Besides consistency, this makes more sense, because the attribute is a
> property of the constraint as a whole, not of the "checking".
>
> This would also extend more easily to other constraint types. For
> example, when unifying CHECK and NOT NULL constraints, as is planned, or
> when allowing inherited unique constraints, as is planned further down
> the road.

+1.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-07-19 13:41:11 reminder: 9.2 branch needs building by buildfarm animals
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-07-19 13:11:31 Re: bgwriter, regression tests, and default shared_buffers settings