| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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? |