On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:49:37AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Sorry to raise this once again, but I still find this CHECK NO INHERIT
> syntax to a bit funny. We are currently using something like
>
> CHECK NO INHERIT (foo > 0)
>
> But we already have a different syntax for attaching attributes to
> constraints (NOT DEFERRABLE, NOT VALID, etc.), so it would make more
> sense to have
>
> CHECK (foo > 0) NO INHERIT
How about this?
CHECK (foo > 0) (INHERIT FALSE)
That leaves an obvious place for other options, which will doubtless
come. EXPLAIN's options inspired this API design.
> Besides consistency, this makes more sense, because the attribute is a
> property of the constraint as a whole, not of the "checking".
Good point. The above change preserves this property.
> This would also extend more easily to other constraint types. For
> example, when unifying CHECK and NOT NULL constraints, as is
> planned, or when allowing inherited unique constraints, as is
> planned further down the road.
>
> There is also a hole in the current implementation. Domain
> constraints silently allow NO INHERIT to be specified, even though
> other senseless attributes are rejected.
That's probably a bug.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
