> psql=# \d a > Table "public.a" > Column | Type | Modifiers > --------+---------+----------- > b | integer | > Check constraints: > "achk" CHECK (false) > "bchk" CHECK (b > 0) > > Is this acceptable? Or we need to put in work into psql to show ONLY > somewhere in the description? If yes, ONLY CHECK sounds weird, maybe > we should use LOCAL CHECK or some such mention: > > Check constraints: > "achk" LOCAL CHECK (false) > "bchk" CHECK (b > 0)
I think you need to stick with "ONLY". Using two different words is just going to create confusion. You could fool around with where exactly you put it on the line, but switching to a different word seems like not a good idea. Ok, maybe something like: "achk" (ONLY) CHECK (false) >>(Also, don't forget you need to hack pg_dump, too.) Yeah, I have already hacked it a bit. This constraint now needs to be spit out later as an ALTER command with ONLY attached to it appropriately. Earlier all CHECK constraints were generally emitted as part of the table definition itself. Regards, Nikhils -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
