Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE
Date: 2012-04-11 18:31:06
Message-ID: 1334168971-sup-1877@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012:

> This patch removes the support for :
>
> ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b > 0);
>
> and uses
>
> ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK ONLY (b > 0);
>
> Is this what we want? Or we would want the earlier support in place for
> backward compatibility as well? We are actually introducing this in 9.2 so
> I guess we can remove this.

I'm not quite following that logic. I don't think support for the
previous syntax should be removed -- does it cause some serious problem?

> This is a much cleaner implementation and we might not even need the
> changes in pg_dump now because the pg_get_constraintdef can provide the
> info about the ONLY part too. So some cleanup can be done if needed.
>
> I know it's a bit late in the commitfest, but if this patch makes this
> feature more "complete", maybe we should consider...
>
> Thoughts?

Personally I don't think we should consider this for 9.2.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-04-11 18:45:50 Re: how to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint in CREATE TABLE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-04-11 18:29:25 Re: Last gasp