> My vote would be to keep it as-is. Same for me.
> It feels perfectly natural to me. USING clauses add to the query's > WHERE clause controlling which existing rows you can SELECT, UPDATE or > DELETE. WITH CHECK clauses control what new data you can add via > INSERT or UPDATE. UPDATE allows both, but most of the time I expect > you'll want them to be the same. I agree. In the current uses cases I have been experimenting with, this approach has made the most sense. > So having the WITH CHECK clause default to being the same as the USING > clause for UPDATE matches what I expect to be the most common usage. I agree. > Users granted permission to update a subset of the table's rows > probably don't want to give those rows away. More advanced use-cases > are still supported, but the simplest/most common case is the default, > which means that you don't have to supply the same expression twice. Yes, I agree. IMO, having to supply the same expression twice just seems cumbersome and unnecessary. While I'd certainly agree that documentation could always be improved, I have found the current behavior to be fairly intuitive and easily understood by most (if not all) DBA's I have spoken with about it. -Adam -- Adam Brightwell - adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com Database Engineer - www.crunchydatasolutions.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
