Re: Review of patch renaming constraints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Review of patch renaming constraints
Date
Msg-id 1327036164.5983.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review of patch renaming constraints  (Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Review of patch renaming constraints
List 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.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Next
From: Nikhil Sontakke
Date:
Subject: Re: Review of patch renaming constraints