| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
| Date: | 2011-07-29 13:49:52 |
| Message-ID: | CABamaqPRV6rNvpo09EP3Rt_hJFc1aAnyh9TS5G9o-M_W7X+W2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Yeah, I have already hacked it a bit. This constraint now needs to be
> > spit out later as an ALTER command with ONLY attached to it
> > appropriately. Earlier all CHECK constraints were generally emitted as
> > part of the table definition itself.
>
> IIRC, there's already support for splitting out a constraint that way,
> in order to deal with circular dependencies. You just need to treat
> this as an additional reason for splitting.
>
>
Yeah, I have indeed followed the existing separate printing logic for "ONLY"
constraints. Had to make the table dependent on this constraint to print the
constraint *after* the table definition.
Regards,
Nikhils
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-07-29 13:52:58 | Re: cheaper snapshots |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2011-07-29 13:47:52 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |