| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| 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 03:38:33 |
| Message-ID: | CANgU5ZcCv-v=LCivv6qL2aa2nZnVCEt7Afy2zLkET6k3RP++xQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Make check passed. Patch has tests for rename constraint.
> >
> > Most normal uses of alter table ... rename constraint ... worked
> normally. However, the patch does not deal correctly with constraints
> which are not inherited, such as primary key constraints:
>
> That appears to be because creating a primary key constraint does not
> set pg_constraint.conisonly correctly. This was introduced recently
> with noninherited check constraints.
>
>
> 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.
Regards,
Nikhils
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-01-20 03:43:17 | Re: WAL Restore process during recovery |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-20 03:00:15 | Re: Command Triggers |