From: | Alexandra Wang <alexandra(dot)wang(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature |
Date: | 2025-03-06 16:06:50 |
Message-ID: | CAK98qZ0GyXS=beohi5PCwenFaSvxK03RpnWM8z8fo+NCt2=NWw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Amul,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:57 AM Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Attached is the rebased patch set against the latest master head,
> which also includes a *new* refactoring patch (0001). In this patch,
> I’ve re-added ATExecAlterChildConstr(), which is required for the main
> feature patch (0008) to handle recursion from different places while
> altering enforceability.
Thanks for the patches!
I reviewed and ran “make check” on each patch. I appreciate how the
patches are organized; separating the refactors from the
implementations made the review process very straightforward.
Overall, LGTM, and I have minor comments below:
0008
Since we are added "convalidated" in some of the constraints tests,
should we also add a "convalidated" field in the "table_constraints"
system view defined in src/backend/catalog/information_schema.sql? If
we do that, we'd also need to update the documentation for this view.
0009
Comment on top of the function ATExecAlterConstrEnforceability():
s/ATExecAlterConstrRecurse/ATExecAlterConstraintInternal/g
Typo in tablecmds.c: s/droping/dropping, s/ke/key
/* We should be droping trigger related to foreign ke constraint */
Thanks,
Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shay Rojansky | 2025-03-06 16:08:11 | Re: JSON_VALUE() behavior when RETURNING bytea (expected base64 decoding) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-03-06 16:03:26 | Re: JSON_VALUE() behavior when RETURNING bytea (expected base64 decoding) |