On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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
