Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Disabling function validation

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Disabling function validation
Date: 2003-10-07 16:39:43
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0310071838130.21517-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian writes:

> I think we should change the "check_function_bodies" to something more
> general.  I like "restore_validation_mode" because it could also be used
> to disable foreign key checks which we are discussing.  An even more
> general idea would be to have something like "restore_mode", and perhaps
> could handle cases like allowing a larger sort_mem or other
> optimizations during restore.

I also like this approach (independent of whether foreign keys should be
one of its applications).  It gives us more freedom to open and close
these types of holes when new issues arise or pg_dump improves.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2003-10-07 16:57:20
Subject: BigInt woes
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-10-07 15:58:26
Subject: Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-10-07 16:58:24
Subject: Re: Disabling function validation
Previous:From: Peter Eisentraut - PostgreSQLDate: 2003-10-07 08:07:56
Subject: pgsql-server/src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib da ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group