Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié abr 11 15:51:51 -0300 2012: > > On 04/11/2012 02:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera<alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > >> Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012: > >>> This patch removes the support for : > >>> > >>> ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b> 0); > >>> > >>> and uses > >>> > >>> ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK ONLY (b> 0); > >>> > >>> I know it's a bit late in the commitfest, but if this patch makes this > >>> feature more "complete", maybe we should consider... > >> Personally I don't think we should consider this for 9.2. > > Well, if we're going to regret having offered the other syntax, now > > would be the time to figure that out, before we ship it not after. > > I would go so far as to say that if we don't accept this for 9.2 > > we probably shouldn't accept it at all, because two different ways > > to spell the same thing isn't nice. > > > > I don't really care for the idea that the ONLY goes in a different place > > for this operation than for every other kind of ALTER TABLE, but it does > > make sense if you subscribe to the quoted theory that ONLY is a property > > of the constraint and not the ALTER command as such. > > I think I rather dislike it. ONLY should be followed by the name of the > parent table whose children it causes us to exclude, IMNSHO. Moving it > elsewhere doesn't seem to me to be a blow for clarity at all.
If that's the only objection, maybe we could use a different keyword then, perhaps NOINHERIT: ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK NOINHERIT (b> 0); -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
