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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
