Re: FK NOT VALID can't be deferrable?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?