On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Well, I don't have anything strongly against the idea of an
>> uninherited constraint, though it sounds like Tom does.  But I think
>> allowing it just in the case of CHECK (false) would be pretty silly.
>> And, I'm fairly certain that this isn't going to play nice with
>> coninhcount... local constraints would have to be marked as local,
>> else the wrong things will happen later on when you drop them.
> Yeah.  If we're going to allow this then we should just have a concept
> of a non-inherited constraint, full stop.  This might just be a matter
> of removing the error thrown in ATAddCheckConstraint, but I'd be worried
> about whether pg_dump will handle the case correctly, what happens when
> a new child is added later, etc etc.

Right.  I'm fairly sure all that stuff is gonna break with the
proposed implementation.  It's a solvable problem, but it's going to
take more than an afternoon to crank it out.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to