Re: Review of patch renaming constraints

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: Review of patch renaming constraints
Дата
Msg-id 1327036164.5983.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Review of patch renaming constraints  (Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Review of patch renaming constraints  (Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On fre, 2012-01-20 at 09:08 +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> > Umm, conisonly is set as false from primary key entries in
> pg_constraint.
> And primary keys are anyways not inherited. So why is the conisonly
> field interfering in rename? Seems quite orthogonal to me. 

In the past, each kind of constraint was either always inherited or
always not, implicitly.  Now, for check constraints we can choose what
we want, and in the future, perhaps we will want to choose for primary
keys as well.  So having conisonly is really a good step into that
future, and we should use it uniformly.



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Следующее
От: Nikhil Sontakke
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Review of patch renaming constraints