From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: notice about costly ri checks (2) |
Date: | 2004-03-05 08:01:11 |
Message-ID: | 44527200-6E7B-11D8-A2F6-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Mar 5, 2004, at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Agreed. The current text is:
>
> NOTICE: costly cross-type foreign key because of component 1
>
> Seems we should say something like:
>
> NOTICE: foreign key constraint 'constrname' must use a costly
> cross-type conversion
It seems to me that in some ways this is similar to the situation where
indexes are created to enforce a UNIQUE constraint. Indexes also incur
additional overhead for inserts and updates, but make no mention of the
cost: the DBA is assumed to know that, or they can check the docs if
they're interested in why such a notice is being raised. I'd think
something as simple as
NOTICE: foreign key constraint 'constrname' will require a cross-type
conversion
similar to
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / UNIQUE will create implicit index
"foox_interesting_key" for table "foox"
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-03-05 08:25:46 | Re: notice about costly ri checks (2) |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-03-05 06:11:56 | Re: [GENERAL] dblink: rollback transaction |