Re: [HACKERS] CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

2012-07-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of sáb jul 21 00:20:57 -0400 2012: Here's a (hopefully) complete patch. Pushed. I hope people like this one better (third time's the charm, and all that). -- Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Re: [HACKERS] CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

2012-07-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mié jul 18 17:49:37 -0400 2012: 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

Re: [HACKERS] CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

2012-07-20 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: True. I have added an error check at creation time. Please suggest improved wording for the message: alvherre=# create domain positiveint2 as int check (value 0) no inherit; ERROR: CHECK constraints for domains cannot be NO INHERIT I

Re: [HACKERS] CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

2012-07-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie jul 20 16:12:05 -0400 2012: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: True. I have added an error check at creation time. Please suggest improved wording for the message: alvherre=# create domain positiveint2 as int check (value 0) no

Re: [HACKERS] CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

2012-07-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net 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

Re: [HACKERS] CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

2012-07-19 Thread David Fetter
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

Re: [HACKERS] CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

2012-07-19 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:49:37AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: 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

[HACKERS] CHECK NO INHERIT syntax

2012-07-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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