|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Mishandling of WCO constraints in direct foreign table modification|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2017/07/25 5:35, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> I mean constraints derived from WITH CHECK OPTIONs specified for parent
>> views. We use the words "WITH CHECK OPTION constraints" in comments in
>> nodeModifyTable.c, so the expression "CHECK OPTION constrains" doesn't sound
>> not that bad to me. (I used "CHECK OPTION", not "WITH CHECK OPTION",
>> because we use "CHECK OPTION" a lot more in the documentation than "WITH
>> CHECK OPTION".)
> Yeah, it seems OK to me, too; if the consensus is otherwise, we also
> have the option to change it later.
> Committed and back-patched as you
> had it, but I removed a spurious comma.
Thanks for that, Robert! Thanks for reviewing, Horiguchi-san!
|Next Message||Peter Geoghegan||2017-07-26 03:02:51||Re: LP_DEAD hinting and not holding on to a buffer pin on leaf page (Was: [WIP] Zipfian distribution in pgbench)|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2017-07-26 02:45:35||Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering?|