On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 09:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> >>> Is this really intended?
> >> I sure hope not.
> > That's a bug. Not sure if it's a psql bug or a backend bug, but it's
> > definitely a bug.
> It's a backend bug. Prior to Simon's patch, there was an existing
> skip_validation flag in the Constraint node that indicated whether or
> not a validation pass was necessary - in a newly created table, for
> example, we know that it's NOT necessary, because the table can't
> contain any rows (and therefore there can't be any rows that violate
> the constraint). The patch tries to make the very same flag indicate
> whether the user wants the constraint to be added with the NOT VALID
> attribute, which of course falls over because the Boolean only has two
> values and there are three cases (validate it, don't validate it but
> do mark it valid because the table is guaranteed to be empty, don't
> validate it and mark it not valid).
Thanks Robert. Yes, my bad. Will fix.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2011-03-18 14:17:53|
|Subject: Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19|
|Previous:||From: hom||Date: 2011-03-18 14:15:58|
|Subject: Re: I am confused after reading codes of PostgreSQL three week|