Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints
Date: 2011-12-16 21:01:56
Message-ID: 1324069097-sup-3090@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Excerpts from Alex Hunsaker's message of vie dic 16 17:50:12 -0300 2011:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah.  Nikhil, Alex, this is the merged patch.  Have a look that it
> > still works for you (particularly the pg_dump bits) and I'll commit it.
> > I adjusted the regression test a bit too.
>
> Other than the version checks seem to be off by one looks fine. I
> assume I/we missed that in the original patch. I also adjusted the
> version check in describe.c to be consistent with the other version
> checks in that file (>= 90200 instead of > 90100).

Uhm ... you're right that convalidated is present in 9.1 but AFAIR it's
only used for FKs, not CHECKs which is what this code path is about (for
CHECKs I only introduced it in 9.2, which is the patch that caused the
merge conflict in the first place). FKs use a completely separate path
in pg_dump which doesn't need the separate convalidated check. So I
don't think we really need to add a separate branch for 9.1 here, but it
certainly needs a comment improvement.

--
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 Alex Hunsaker 2011-12-16 21:07:05 Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2011-12-16 20:50:12 Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints