| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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: | 2012-04-16 06:56:06 |
| Message-ID: | CANgU5Zf4zrt8TTbFQPDuNhY9=G3NrP8DRsf0UB1wG03XjfTT-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Displace yes. It would error out if someone says
> >
> > ALTER TABLE ONLY... CHECK ();
> >
> > suggesting to use the ONLY with the CHECK.
>
> I'd say the behavior for that case can revert to the PostgreSQL 9.1
> behavior.
> If the table has children, raise an error. Otherwise, add an inheritable
> CHECK constraint, albeit one lacking inheritors at that moment.
>
>
Ok, that sounds reasonable.
Another thing that we should consider is that if we are replacing ONLY with
NO INHERIT, then instead of just making a cosmetic syntactic change, we
should also replace all the is*only type of field names with noinherit for
the sake of completeness and uniformity.
Regards,
Nikhils
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-04-16 07:00:58 | Re: Improving our clauseless-join heuristics |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-16 06:52:50 | Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join |