> > Yeah, I have already hacked it a bit. This constraint now needs to be
> > spit out later as an ALTER command with ONLY attached to it
> > appropriately. Earlier all CHECK constraints were generally emitted as
> > part of the table definition itself.
> IIRC, there's already support for splitting out a constraint that way,
> in order to deal with circular dependencies.  You just need to treat
> this as an additional reason for splitting.
Yeah, I have indeed followed the existing separate printing logic for "ONLY"
constraints. Had to make the table dependent on this constraint to print the
constraint *after* the table definition.


Reply via email to