On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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.
+1 for fixing up the syntax before 9.2 goes out the door. I think the original syntax was misguided to begin with. CHECK NO INHERIT sounds fine to me; will that display ALTER TABLE ONLY x as the one true way of doing this? -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
