| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Neil Anderson <neil(at)postgrescompare(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: v10beta pg_catalog diagrams |
| Date: | 2017-06-14 03:53:50 |
| Message-ID: | 49596d90-9a43-b3f6-180e-12b40a0962c9@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/13/17 17:08, Andres Freund wrote:
> I wondered before if we shouldn't introduce "information only"
> unenforced foreign key constraints for the catalogs. We kind of
> manually do that via oidjoins, it'd be nicer if we'd a function
> rechecking fkeys, and the fkeys were in the catalog...
I don't see why we couldn't just add a full complement of primary and
foreign key constraints (and unique constraints and perhaps some check
constraints). The argument is that they wouldn't normally do anything,
but they would help with documentation and browsing tools, and they
wouldn't hurt anything.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-06-14 03:59:49 | Re: outfuncs.c utility statement support |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-06-14 03:50:24 | Re: A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition() |