Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2?

From: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
To: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2?
Date: 2003-04-12 18:51:36
Message-ID: 01b801c30124$8c915110$3201a8c0@beeblebrox
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck wrote:
> > In any case, why don't we get a patch against 7.3, and make an
> > announcement and let people who are interested use it and test it. With
> > in-field testing it'd probably be safe enough. :)
>
> Here it is.
>

[patch... skipping]

I applied the patch to a 7.3.2 installation, and did a make clean, make,
make check. There is one regression error. Is this an expected behaviour? Or
did I do something wrong? See regression diffs:

*** ./expected/foreign_key.out Sun Sep 22 02:37:09 2002
--- ./results/foreign_key.out Sat Apr 12 20:44:54 2003
***************
*** 882,888 ****
ERROR: $1 referential integrity violation - key in pktable still
referenced from pktable
-- fails (1,1) is being referenced (twice)
update pktable set base1=3 where base1=1;
! ERROR: $1 referential integrity violation - key referenced from pktable
not found in pktable
-- this sequence of two deletes will work, since after the first there
will be no (2,*) references
delete from pktable where base2=2;
delete from pktable where base1=2;
--- 882,888 ----
ERROR: $1 referential integrity violation - key in pktable still
referenced from pktable
-- fails (1,1) is being referenced (twice)
update pktable set base1=3 where base1=1;
! ERROR: $1 referential integrity violation - key in pktable still
referenced from pktable
-- this sequence of two deletes will work, since after the first there
will be no (2,*) references
delete from pktable where base2=2;
delete from pktable where base1=2;

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steven Singer 2003-04-12 19:46:28 Re: Batch replication ordering (was Re: [GENERAL] 32/64-bit
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2003-04-12 18:08:03 Re: Case sensitive order by

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2003-04-12 19:29:38 Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2003-04-12 16:00:20 Re: Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL