Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of lun abr 16 03:56:06 -0300 2012:
> > > Displace yes. It would error out if someone says
> > >
> > > ALTER TABLE ONLY... CHECK ();
> > >
> > > suggesting to use the ONLY with the CHECK.
> >
> > I'd say the behavior for that case can revert to the PostgreSQL
> > Displace yes. It would error out if someone says
> >
> > ALTER TABLE ONLY... CHECK ();
> >
> > suggesting to use the ONLY with the CHECK.
>
> I'd say the behavior for that case can revert to the PostgreSQL 9.1
> behavior.
> If the table has children, raise an error. Otherwise, add an inheritab
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:50:31AM +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> > > CHECK NO INHERIT sounds fine to me; will that display ALTER TABLE ONLY
> > > x as the one true way of doing this?
> >
> > s/display/displace/, I think you meant? Yeah, that's what I understand
> > the proposal to be.
+1 for th
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié abr 11 15:51:51 -0300 2012:
>> On 04/11/2012 02:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't really care for the idea that the ONLY goes in a different place
>>> for this operation than for every other kind of ALTER TABLE, but it does
>
Hi,
Cumulative reaction to all the responses first:
Whoa! :)
I was under the impression that a majority of us felt that the current
mechanism was inadequate. Also if you go through the nabble thread, the
fact that CREATE TABLE did not support such constraints was considered to
be an annoyance. A
Robert Haas writes:
> +1 for fixing up the syntax before 9.2 goes out the door. I think the
> original syntax was misguided to begin with.
Well, it was fine in isolation, but once you consider how to make CREATE
TABLE do this too, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you need to
attach the mod
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012:
>>> This patch removes the support for :
>>>
>>> ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b > 0);
>>>
>>> and uses
>>>
On 04/11/2012 03:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd propose "CHECK NO INHERIT", though, as (a) it seems better English
and (b) it avoids creating any new keyword.
I could live with that too.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to yo
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mié abr 11 15:51:51 -0300 2012:
>
> On 04/11/2012 02:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012:
> >>> This patch removes the support for :
> >>>
> >>> ALTER TABLE ONL
On 04/11/2012 02:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera writes:
Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012:
This patch removes the support for :
ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b> 0);
and uses
ALTER TABLE constraint_rename
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012:
>> This patch removes the support for :
>>
>> ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b > 0);
>>
>> and uses
>>
>> ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT co
Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of mié abr 11 15:07:45 -0300 2012:
> This patch removes the support for :
>
> ALTER TABLE ONLY constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK (b > 0);
>
> and uses
>
> ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK ONLY (b > 0);
>
> Is t
Hi,
So, I have a patch for this. This patch introduces support for
CHECK ONLY syntax while doing a CREATE TABLE as well as during the usual
ALTER TABLE command.
Example:
create table atacc7 (test int, test2 int CHECK ONLY (test>0), CHECK
(test2>10));
create table atacc8 () inherits (atacc7);
p
On ons, 2012-01-18 at 18:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I agree with Peter that we should have we should have CHECK ONLY.
> ONLY is really a property of the constraint, not the ALTER TABLE
> command -- if it were otherwise, we wouldn't need to store it the
> system catalogs, but of course we do. T
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
>> >> It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
>> >> is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
>> >> That looks a bit odd.
>> >
>> > There are no plans to do that AFAIR, though maybe y
> >> It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
> >> is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
> >> That looks a bit odd.
> >
> > There are no plans to do that AFAIR, though maybe you could convince
> > Nikhil to write the patch to do so.
>
> T
On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar ene 17 13:59:57 -0300 2012:
>> It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
>> is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
>> That looks a bit odd
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar ene 17 13:59:57 -0300 2012:
> It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
> is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
> That looks a bit odd.
There are no plans to do that AFAIR, though maybe you
It appears that the only way to create a non-inherited CHECK constraint
is using ALTER TABLE. Is there no support in CREATE TABLE planned?
That looks a bit odd.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/
19 matches
Mail list logo
