Excerpts from Greg Smith's message of vie dic 16 15:02:20 -0300 2011:
> On 12/04/2011 02:22 AM, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
> >
> > Is it okay to modify an existing constraint to mark it as "only", even
> > if it was originally inheritable? This is not clear to me. Maybe the
> > safest course of action is to raise an error. Or maybe I'm misreading
> > what it does (because I haven't compiled it yet).
> >
> >
> > Hmmm, good question. IIRC, the patch will pass is_only as true only if
> > it going to be a locally defined, non-inheritable constraint. So I
> > went by the logic that since it was ok to merge and mark a constraint
> > as locally defined, it should be ok to mark it non-inheritable from
> > this moment on with that new local definition?
I think I misread what that was trying to do. I thought it would turn
on the "is only" bit on a constraint that a child had inherited from a
previous parent, but that was obviously wrong now that I think about it
again.
> With this open question, this looks like it's back in Alvaro's hands
> again to me. This one started the CF as "Ready for Committer" and seems
> stalled there for now. I'm not going to touch its status, just pointing
> this fact out.
Yeah. Nikhil, Alex, this is the merged patch. Have a look that it
still works for you (particularly the pg_dump bits) and I'll commit it.
I adjusted the regression test a bit too.
Thanks.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
