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

From Nikhil Sontakke
Subject Re: Review of patch renaming constraints
Date
Msg-id CANgU5ZcCv-v=LCivv6qL2aa2nZnVCEt7Afy2zLkET6k3RP++xQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review of patch renaming constraints  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Review of patch renaming constraints  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
 
> Make check passed.  Patch has tests for rename constraint.
>
> Most normal uses of alter table ... rename constraint ... worked normally.  However, the patch does not deal correctly with constraints which are not inherited, such as primary key constraints:

That appears to be because creating a primary key constraint does not
set pg_constraint.conisonly correctly.  This was introduced recently
with noninherited check constraints.


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.

Regards,
Nikhils

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Command Triggers
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL Restore process during recovery