Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints
| От | Greg Smith |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4EEB87AC.8050401@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints (Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/04/2011 02:22 AM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
With this open question, this looks like it's back in Alvaro's hands again to me. This one started the CF as "Ready for Committer" and seems stalled there for now. I'm not going to touch its status, just pointing this fact out.
Is it okay to modify an existing constraint to mark it as "only", even
if it was originally inheritable? This is not clear to me. Maybe the
safest course of action is to raise an error. Or maybe I'm misreading
what it does (because I haven't compiled it yet).
Hmmm, good question. IIRC, the patch will pass is_only as true only if it going to be a locally defined, non-inheritable constraint. So I went by the logic that since it was ok to merge and mark a constraint as locally defined, it should be ok to mark it non-inheritable from this moment on with that new local definition?
With this open question, this looks like it's back in Alvaro's hands again to me. This one started the CF as "Ready for Committer" and seems stalled there for now. I'm not going to touch its status, just pointing this fact out.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: