Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think #1, while ugly, is probably less ugly than the others, although I
> guess it means even more work if the underlying type of the column is
> changed.

Oy, I hadn't thought of that.  [ considers... ]  I *think* that it'll
work without special code, because ALTER COLUMN TYPE drops and recreates
the constraints, but definitely something to test.  Thanks for the

> Is there any reason to think that in the future we might need more such
> things for some constraints?

Um ... more such which, exactly?  And do you have something in mind if
the answer is "yes"?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to