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 9.1
> > behavior.
> > If the table has children, raise an error. Otherwise, add an inheritable
> > CHECK constraint, albeit one lacking inheritors at that moment.
> >
> Ok, that sounds reasonable.
Good, I agree with that too.
Are you going to submit an updated patch? I started working on your
original a couple of days ago but got distracted by some family news
here. I'll send it to you so that you can start from there, to avoid
duplicate work.
> Another thing that we should consider is that if we are replacing ONLY with
> NO INHERIT, then instead of just making a cosmetic syntactic change, we
> should also replace all the is*only type of field names with noinherit for
> the sake of completeness and uniformity.
Yeah, I was considering the same thing. "conisonly" isn't a very good
name on its own (it only made sense because the ONLY came from "ALTER
TABLE ONLY").
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
