Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Review of patch renaming constraints

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-01-20 03:43:17
Subject: Re: WAL Restore process during recovery
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-20 03:00:15
Subject: Re: Command Triggers

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group