| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints |
| Date: | 2011-12-26 14:49:28 |
| Message-ID: | CANgU5Ze_M204FOyHm7Be9t05rTS7T6XkHuZZHjPZpvBbgacgZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I don't think this is a given ... In fact, IMO if we're only two or
> > three fixes away from having it all nice and consistent, I think
> > reverting is not necessary.
>
> Sure. It's the "if" part of that sentence that I'm not too sure about.
>
>
Any specific area of the code that you think is/has become fragile (apart
from the non-support for CREATE TABLE based ONLY constraints)? The second
bug is a variant of the first. And I have provided a patch for it.
Regards,
Nikhils
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Björnhagen | 2011-12-26 14:59:32 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-12-26 13:35:58 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |