Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51A6475B07 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C37BD4758BD for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16281 invoked by uid 0); 17 Nov 2002 13:17:00 -0000 Received: from pd902f0d1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (217.2.240.209) by mail.gmx.net (mp018-rz3) with SMTP; 17 Nov 2002 13:17:00 -0000 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:24:34 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@localhost.localdomain To: Richard Huxton Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Column and table constraints - anally retentive comments In-Reply-To: <200211151518.26707.dev@archonet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/25 X-Sequence-Number: 1549 Richard Huxton writes: > Not quite taste I'd have thought. Column (value) related constraints should be > written as such, not disconnected from their column. Same principle as > declaring variables near to where they are needed. It's a matter of taste. ;-) Which does not say that any one choice corresponds to the actual taste of the majority. Note that the section you refer to specifically aims to illustrate that column and table constraints are more or less interchangeable, which does not mean that it is always a good idea to change them around beyond recognition. That said, if you have a better way to word it, please say so. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net