> 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.
Oh I see. > 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... > > Yeah, in your case too an initdb would be required, so might as well go down the route of a new column. Any preferences for the name? connoinh conisonly constatic or confixed Others? Regards, Nikhils
