From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FK NOT VALID can't be deferrable? |
Date: | 2011-06-15 15:54:25 |
Message-ID: | 29433.1308153265@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 15 June 2011 07:56, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Testing the CHECK NOT VALID patch i found $subject... is this intended?
> Aside from the ugliness of the code, we can't just add a
> ConstraintAttributeSpec to the second block, because that would
> enforce an order to these options.
> OTOH adding NOT VALID to ConstraintAttributeSpec is a bit invasive,
> since it's used in quite a few places, including CREATE TABLE, where
> NOT VALID is never allowed.
> Thoughts?
I think we need to do the second one, ie, add it to
ConstraintAttributeSpec and do what's necessary to filter later.
The reason we have a problem here is exactly that somebody took
shortcuts.
It'd probably be sufficient to have one or two places in
parse_utilcmds.c know which variants of Constraint actually support
NOT VALID, and throw an error for the rest.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-15 16:07:29 | Re: procpid? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-15 15:40:23 | Re: procpid? |