Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints

Hi Alex,

I didn't care for the changes to gram.y so I reworked it a bit so we
> now pass is_only to AddRelationNewConstraint() (like we do with
> is_local). Seemed simpler but maybe I missed something. Comments?
>
>
Hmmm, your patch checks for a constraint being "only" via:

!recurse && !recursing

I hope that is good enough to conclusively conclude that the constraint is
'only'. This check was not too readable in the existing code for me anyways
;). If we check at the grammar level, we can be sure. But I remember not
being too comfortable about the right position to ascertain this
characteristic.

> I also moved the is_only check in AtAddCheckConstraint() to before we
> grab and loop through any children. Seemed a bit wasteful to loop
> through the new constraints just to set a flag so that we could bail
> out while looping through the children.
>
>
Ditto comment for this function. I thought this function went to great
lengths to spit out a proper error in case of inconsistencies between parent
and child. But if your check makes it simpler, that's good!

> You also forgot to bump Natts_pg_constraint.
>
>
Ouch. Thanks for the catch.

> PFA the above changes as well as being "rebased" against master.
>

Thanks Alex, appreciate the review!

Regards,
Nikhils