From: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Order of enforcement of CHECK constraints? |
Date: | 2015-03-24 19:28:45 |
Message-ID: | CAFcNs+q_op2d9KFdYrfOki9Ume6jZjmiEHe9UQD5UD4-S9AhNw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> =?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >>>> We could fix it by, say, having CheckConstraintFetch() sort the
> >>>> constraints by name after loading them.
>
> > Isn't better do this to read pg_constraint in name order?
>
> > - conscan = systable_beginscan(conrel, ConstraintRelidIndexId, true,
> > + conscan = systable_beginscan(conrel, ConstraintNameNspIndexId, true,
>
> Surely not. That would end up having to read *all* of pg_constraint, not
> only the rows applicable to the current relation.
>
Yeah... you're correct... we need the oid in the index.
> We could get the index to do the work for us if we changed it from an
> index on conrelid to one on conrelid, conname. However, seeing that that
> would bloat the index by a factor of sixteen, it hardly sounds like a
> free fix either.
>
But in this way we can save some cicles as Ashutosh complains... or am I
missing something?
> I really think that a quick application of qsort is the best-performing
> way to do this.
>
Something like the attached?
With current master:
fabrizio=# create table foo(a integer, b integer);
CREATE TABLE
fabrizio=# alter table foo add constraint aa check(a>0);
ALTER TABLE
fabrizio=# alter table foo add constraint bb check(b>0);
ALTER TABLE
fabrizio=# insert into foo values (0,0);
ERROR: new row for relation "foo" violates check constraint "bb"
DETAIL: Failing row contains (0, 0).
With the attached patch:
fabrizio=# create table foo(a integer, b integer);
CREATE TABLE
fabrizio=# alter table foo add constraint aa check(a>0);
ALTER TABLE
fabrizio=# alter table foo add constraint bb check(b>0);
ALTER TABLE
fabrizio=# insert into foo values (0,0);
ERROR: new row for relation "foo" violates check constraint "aa"
DETAIL: Failing row contains (0, 0).
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
order-of-check-constraints-v1.patch | text/x-diff | 1.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-03-24 19:52:26 | Re: printing table in asciidoc with psql |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-24 19:26:28 | Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts |