"David G. Johnston" writes:
> This is a bit hard to reason about given that our implementation of
> inheritance is non-standard.
Yeah, that's a fairly key point. We've solved those problems with
respect to inherited CHECK constraints, and it seems like what we
ought
On 5/3/16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vitaly Burovoy writes:
>> On 4/27/16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Point 2 is where things differ from what I remember; my (possibly
>>> flawed) understanding was that there's no difference between
On Monday, February 8, 2016, Vitaly Burovoy
wrote:
>
> 12. At the same time in (subcl. 4.13) mentioned there can be "at least
> one NNC" (may be via inheritance?).
>
>
This is a bit hard to reason about given that our implementation of
inheritance is non-standard.
Are
Quick flyby here...
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vitaly Burovoy > writes:
> > On 4/27/16, Alvaro Herrera >
> wrote:
> >> Point 2 is where things differ from what I remember; my
Vitaly Burovoy writes:
> On 4/27/16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Point 2 is where things differ from what I remember; my (possibly
>> flawed) understanding was that there's no difference between those
>> things. Many (maybe all) of the things
I'm sorry for the late answer.
On 4/27/16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> But before starting working on it I had a look at the SQL-2011
>> standard (ISO/IEC 9075-2)[3] and found that:
>>
>> 1. A name for a "NOT NULL" constraint can be given
Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
Hi,
> But before starting working on it I had a look at the SQL-2011
> standard (ISO/IEC 9075-2)[3] and found that:
>
> 1. A name for a "NOT NULL" constraint can be given by a table
> definition (subcl. 11.4, "Format"->"column constraint definition").
> 2. The standard
On 2/7/16, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
> Hello, Hackers!
>
> TODO list has an entry "Move NOT NULL constraint information to
> pg_constraint" with four links and without two with the newest
> work[1][2].
>
> I rebased the patch from [2] (in attachment). At least it applies
>