On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil.sonta...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Alternatively we could bring about the same > by using a combination of conislocal and coninhcnt. For ONLY constraints, we > will need to percolate this information down to the point where we define it > in the code. We can then mark ONLY constraints to have conislocal set to > TRUE and coninhcnt set to a special value (-1)
This approach certainly can't work, because a table can be both an inheritance parent and an inheritance child. It could have an ONLY constraint, and also inherit a copy of the same constraint for one or more parents. IOW, the fact that conislocal = true does not mean that coninhcount is irrelevant. I think what you probably want to do is either (a) add a new column or (b) change conislocal to a char value and make it three-valued: n = inherited constraint, no local definition o = defined locally as an "ONLY" constraint i = defined locally as a non-ONLY constraint I think I favor the latter approach as more space-efficient, but I hear Tom muttering about backward-compatibility... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
