From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Check constraints on non-immutable keys |
Date: | 2010-06-30 16:33:03 |
Message-ID: | 4C2B71BF.7020008@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30/06/10 17:11, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> My scintillating contribution to this discussion is the observation
>>> that unrestorable dumps suck.
>>
>> No doubt, but is this a real problem in practice?
>
> Magnus tells me that that was what prompted his original email.
I've done it. Luckily only with a small and fully functioning database
so I could drop the constraint and re-dump it.
Had a "recent_date" domain that was making sure new diary-style entries
had a plausible date. Of course, two years later my dump can no longer
restore the oldest record :-(
IMHO The real solution would be something that could strip/rewrite the
constraint on restore rather than trying to prevent people being stupid
though. People *will* just tag their functions as immutable to get them
to work.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-06-30 17:11:40 | Re: Check constraints on non-immutable keys |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-30 16:11:37 | Re: Check constraints on non-immutable keys |