| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Constraint merge and not valid status |
| Date: | 2016-07-16 23:04:52 |
| Message-ID: | 28e21478-6429-b4b3-2ebf-7e0ba412c5bf@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/13/16 4:22 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Consider a scenario where one adds a *valid* constraint on a inheritance
> parent which is then merged with a child table's *not valid* constraint
> during inheritance recursion. If merged, the constraint is not checked
> for the child data even though it may have some. Is that an oversight?
Seen as how you used to be able to illegally twerk NOT NULL status on
children (and maybe still can), I'd bet this is a bug...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-07-16 23:15:12 | Re: application_name in process name? |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2016-07-16 22:48:08 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |