Re: notice about costly ri checks (2)

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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