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<alvherre@commandprompt.com> 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 con2 CHECK ONLY (b> 0);
> >>>
> >>> I know it's a bit late in the commitfest, but if this patch makes this
> >>> feature more "complete", maybe we should consider...
> >> Personally I don't think we should consider this for 9.2.
> > Well, if we're going to regret having offered the other syntax, now
> > would be the time to figure that out, before we ship it not after.
> > I would go so far as to say that if we don't accept this for 9.2
> > we probably shouldn't accept it at all, because two different ways
> > to spell the same thing isn't nice.
> >
> > 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
> > make sense if you subscribe to the quoted theory that ONLY is a property
> > of the constraint and not the ALTER command as such.
>
> I think I rather dislike it. ONLY should be followed by the name of the
> parent table whose children it causes us to exclude, IMNSHO. Moving it
> elsewhere doesn't seem to me to be a blow for clarity at all.
If that's the only objection, maybe we could use a different keyword
then, perhaps NOINHERIT:
ALTER TABLE constraint_rename_test ADD CONSTRAINT con2 CHECK NOINHERIT (b> 0);
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
