Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)

Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > If we go that direction, why don't we just make a GUC variable to
> > disable constraint checking. Is that what this will do, or is it more
> > limited. I know it breaks referential integrity, but we have had many
> > folks as for it, it is on the TODO list, and there are tons of server
> > functions flying around that do just this by fiddling with pg_class. I
> > would rather just have it be a GUC for that particular backend. People
> > are going to need to turn it off anyway, so why not give them a clean
> > way to do it.
>
> But such a GUC wouldn't affect just one backend. It'd potentially affect
> all backends that were doing concurrent modifications that would be
> involved since the locks aren't taken. In addition, who would be allowed
> to set this value and what constraints would it affect? If it's only
> superusers, then it doesn't help for non-superuser restores. If it's
> settable by anyone and affects only constraints on tables that user owns
> and that refer to tables that user owns it might be okay. If it's
> settable by anyone and affects all tables it renders the constraints
> meaningless since anyone could break them.

I assume it would be only setable by the super-user. They are mucking
around with pg_class anyway (and have permission to do so), so let them
do it cleanly at least. Allowing non-supers to do it for tables they
own would be OK, I guess. Is there a problem if some of the primary
table is owned by someone else? Not sure.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073