Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:36:11 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
	Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Message-ID: <20161124193611.42imqbihlack7vmh@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <cd0d4d19-f72b-6ddb-5033-556501cb3c48@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161104 (1.7.1)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2016/11/24 15:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote:

> >> You have to specify column constraints using the keywords WITH OPTIONS,
> >> like below:
> >>
> >> create table p1 partition of p (
> >>     a with options primary key
> >> ) for values in (1);
> > 
> > Oh, sorry for not noticing it. You are right. Why do we need "with
> > option" there? Shouldn't user be able to specify just "a primary key";
> > it's not really an "option", it's a constraint.
> 
> I just adopted the existing syntax for specifying column/table constraints
> of a table created with CREATE TABLE OF type_name.

I think CREATE TABLE OF is pretty much a corner case.  I agree that
allowing the constraint right after the constraint name is more
intuitive.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers