Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of vie dic 16 15:02:20 -0300 2011:
> On 12/04/2011 02:22 AM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> >
> >     Is it okay to modify an existing constraint to mark it as "only", even
> >     if it was originally inheritable?  This is not clear to me.  Maybe the
> >     safest course of action is to raise an error.  Or maybe I'm misreading
> >     what it does (because I haven't compiled it yet).
> >
> >
> > Hmmm, good question. IIRC, the patch will pass is_only as true only if 
> > it going to be a locally defined, non-inheritable constraint. So I 
> > went by the logic that since it was ok to merge and mark a constraint 
> > as locally defined, it should be ok to mark it non-inheritable from 
> > this moment on with that new local definition?

I think I misread what that was trying to do.  I thought it would turn
on the "is only" bit on a constraint that a child had inherited from a
previous parent, but that was obviously wrong now that I think about it

> With this open question, this looks like it's back in Alvaro's hands 
> again to me.  This one started the CF as "Ready for Committer" and seems 
> stalled there for now.  I'm not going to touch its status, just pointing 
> this fact out.

Yeah.  Nikhil, Alex, this is the merged patch.  Have a look that it
still works for you (particularly the pg_dump bits) and I'll commit it.
I adjusted the regression test a bit too.


Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Attachment: non_inh_check_v4.patch
Description: Binary data

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

Reply via email to