Re: CREATE FOREGIN TABLE LACUNA

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CREATE FOREGIN TABLE LACUNA
Date: 2012-03-14 21:38:12
Message-ID: 6034.1331761092@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On ons, 2012-03-14 at 17:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If a constraint is NOT ENFORCED, then the query planner presumably
>> won't rely on it for planning purposes

> Why do you presume that?

What does SQL:2011 say exactly about the semantics of NOT ENFORCED?
Is an implementation allowed to fail in undefined ways if a constraint
is marked NOT ENFORCED and is not actually true?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-03-14 21:58:42 Re: Faster compression, again
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2012-03-14 21:36:22 Re: pg_upgrade and statistics