On 2017/07/25 5:35, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> I mean constraints derived from WITH CHECK OPTIONs specified for parent
>> views. We use the words "WITH CHECK OPTION constraints" in comments in
>> nodeModifyTable.c, so the expression "CHECK OPTION constrains" doesn't sound
>> not that bad to me. (I used "CHECK OPTION", not "WITH CHECK OPTION",
>> because we use "CHECK OPTION" a lot more in the documentation than "WITH
>> CHECK OPTION".)
>
> Yeah, it seems OK to me, too; if the consensus is otherwise, we also
> have the option to change it later.
Agreed.
> Committed and back-patched as you
> had it, but I removed a spurious comma.
Thanks for that, Robert! Thanks for reviewing, Horiguchi-san!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
