| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: ADD/DROP CONSTRAINT and inheritance |
| Date: | 2001-05-24 04:57:28 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0105232156040.71051-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Seems like a bad idea to
> > me. But as long as the default is to propagate these changes, I'm not
> > really eager to prohibit DBAs from doing the other. Who's to say what's
> > a misuse of inheritance and what's not...
>
> At the moment we have:
>
> * ADD CONSTRAINT does not propagate
> * If you create a table with a CHECK constraint, then create a table that
> inherits from that, the CHECK constraint _does_ propagate.
>
> Seems to me that these behaviours are inconsistent...
Yep, but I've got the minimal patch to fix ADD CONSTRAINT. I'm just
waiting for the upcoming weekend so I can add the regression tests and
pack it up.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2001-05-24 05:19:14 | Re: Rtree; cannot create index on polygons with lots of points |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-05-24 04:49:32 | Re: DROP CONSTRAINT patch |