On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > It's clear that we need to pass down the information that this action is > coming from re-creation of a check constraint, but I think the above > proposal for how to do it is pretty wrong-headed.
Yeah, I only meant that we need to teach ATExecAddConstraint that its being called from the specific pass of ALTER TABLE and wanted to get agreement on that. I hadn't thought about any particular implementation. So your proposal below looks absolutely fine and clean. > > I'm inclined to think the cleanest solution is to add another value of > enum AlterTableType, perhaps "AT_ReAddConstraint", to signal that we're > executing a re-add; and then add another bool parameter to > ATExecAddConstraint to tell the latter not to complain if child tables > exist. This is more in line with pre-existing coding choices such as > the use of AT_AddConstraintRecurse. > Please see attached patch which does what you suggested above. May be it needs a little more commentary to record why we made this specific change. Please let me know if you think so and want me to do that. Thanks, Pavan
alter-type-readd-constraint.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
