On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
<nikhil.sonta...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Alternatively we could bring about the same
> by using a combination of conislocal and coninhcnt. For ONLY constraints, we
> will need to percolate this information down to the point where we define it
> in the code. We can then mark ONLY constraints to have conislocal set to
> TRUE and coninhcnt set to a special value (-1)

This approach certainly can't work, because a table can be both an
inheritance parent and an inheritance child.  It could have an ONLY
constraint, and also inherit a copy of the same constraint for one or
more parents.  IOW, the fact that conislocal = true does not mean that
coninhcount is irrelevant.  I think what you probably want to do is
either (a) add a new column or (b) change conislocal to a char value
and make it three-valued:

n = inherited constraint, no local definition
o = defined locally as an "ONLY" constraint
i = defined locally as a non-ONLY constraint

I think I favor the latter approach as more space-efficient, but I
hear Tom muttering about backward-compatibility...

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