On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > Sorry to raise this once again, but I still find this CHECK NO INHERIT > syntax to a bit funny. We are currently using something like > > CHECK NO INHERIT (foo > 0) > > But we already have a different syntax for attaching attributes to > constraints (NOT DEFERRABLE, NOT VALID, etc.), so it would make more > sense to have > > CHECK (foo > 0) NO INHERIT > > Besides consistency, this makes more sense, because the attribute is a > property of the constraint as a whole, not of the "checking". > > This would also extend more easily to other constraint types. For > example, when unifying CHECK and NOT NULL constraints, as is planned, or > when allowing inherited unique constraints, as is planned further down > the road.
+1. -- 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
