On fre, 2012-01-20 at 09:08 +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> > Umm, conisonly is set as false from primary key entries in
> 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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Nikhil Sontakke||Date: 2012-01-20 06:02:25|
|Subject: Re: Review of patch renaming constraints|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-01-20 05:07:06|
|Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |