Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)