Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Peter Childs <Blue(dot)Dragon(at)blueyonder(dot)co(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta)
Date: 2003-09-29 03:48:48
Message-ID: 3F77ABA0.4070600@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

You could just as easily argue that the lack of integrity testing at
data load time was equally a bug.

I think we need someway of telling postgres to suppress a foreign key check.

The main problem is that the foreign key column is often not indexed.

Chris

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>
>>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, we haven't even *got* a proposed patch yet, but yeah we should
>>>>tread carefully.
>>
>>>OK. What releases had this slow restore problem?
>>
>>We introduced it in 7.3 --- before that, FKs were simply dumped as
>>"create trigger" commands, and there was no check overhead. So arguably
>>it is a bug; a performance bug maybe, but that's still a bug. No one
>>has yet gone through a dump/reload cycle in which they had to face this
>>penalty.
>
>
> Now that is a strong argument. I knew you would find one. :-)
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dennis Gearon 2003-09-29 04:02:44 Re: Modification Dates
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-29 03:41:53 Re: PostgreSQL SSL communication with SecureTcpClient (Ssl

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2003-09-29 03:56:00 Re: 2-phase commit
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2003-09-29 03:26:01 Alter Table Column Datatype