Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Review of patch renaming constraints

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review of patch renaming constraints
Date: 2012-01-20 05:09:24
Message-ID: 1327036164.5983.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On fre, 2012-01-20 at 09:08 +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> > Umm, conisonly is set as false from primary key entries in
> pg_constraint.
> And primary keys are anyways not inherited. So why is the conisonly
> field interfering in rename? Seems quite orthogonal to me. 

In the past, each kind of constraint was either always inherited or
always not, implicitly.  Now, for check constraints we can choose what
we want, and in the future, perhaps we will want to choose for primary
keys as well.  So having conisonly is really a good step into that
future, and we should use it uniformly.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Nikhil SontakkeDate: 2012-01-20 06:02:25
Subject: Re: Review of patch renaming constraints
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-01-20 05:07:06
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group