> > 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.