Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches
Date: 2008-09-26 02:58:57
Message-ID: 603c8f070809251958x553c8007t7ba2f277732fdc60@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> You mean her data just disappears? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me.
>
> In reference cases, we can consider she looks the tables via something
> like VIEWs implicitly. The "VIEW" can hide several tuple, but it does
> not break any reference consistency in the raw level.

I don't understand what this means.

Suppose we have two tables:

CREATE TABLE parent (a integer, primary key (a));
CREATE TABLE child (a integer references parent, b integer);

Consider these queries:

1. SELECT * FROM child
2. SELECT * FROM child JOIN parent ON child.a = parent.a

In query (1), I wouldn't expect the foreign key on child to matter at
all. In query (2), of course, the tuples in parent are no longer
visible, so I expect things to get filtered. I'm not sure whether
this is what you're proposing or not.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-26 03:17:30 Re: Bug in ILIKE?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-09-26 02:54:28 Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches