Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [HACKERS] Mishandling of WCO constraints in direct foreign table modification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Mishandling of WCO constraints in direct foreign table modification
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaC3edVEFG6sTNg93OAj3b7V-VHjv0Y-cvybnrVuZiiYw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Mishandling of WCO constraints in direct foreign tablemodification  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Mishandling of WCO constraints in direct foreign tablemodification
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
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.  Committed and back-patched as you
had it, but I removed a spurious comma.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standbyserver
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Pageinspect - add functions on GIN and GiSTindexes from gevel