Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of lun abr 16 03:56:06 -0300 2012: > > > Displace yes. It would error out if someone says > > > > > > ALTER TABLE ONLY... CHECK (); > > > > > > suggesting to use the ONLY with the CHECK. > > > > I'd say the behavior for that case can revert to the PostgreSQL 9.1 > > behavior. > > If the table has children, raise an error. Otherwise, add an inheritable > > CHECK constraint, albeit one lacking inheritors at that moment. > > > Ok, that sounds reasonable.
Good, I agree with that too. Are you going to submit an updated patch? I started working on your original a couple of days ago but got distracted by some family news here. I'll send it to you so that you can start from there, to avoid duplicate work. > Another thing that we should consider is that if we are replacing ONLY with > NO INHERIT, then instead of just making a cosmetic syntactic change, we > should also replace all the is*only type of field names with noinherit for > the sake of completeness and uniformity. Yeah, I was considering the same thing. "conisonly" isn't a very good name on its own (it only made sense because the ONLY came from "ALTER TABLE ONLY"). -- 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
