Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED

On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 20:56 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 1/23/2011 8:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 20:33 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> >> On 1/23/2011 8:23 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 19:50 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> >>>> Another problem I found is that psql doesn't indicate in any way that a
> >>>> FOREIGN KEY constraint is not validated yet.
> >>>
> >>> Should it?
> >>> What command do you think needs changing?
> >>
> >> \d table now only shows that there's a FOREIGN KEY, which might lead the
> >> user to think that there should not be any values that don't exist in
> >> the referenced table.
> >
> > Neither \d nor \di shows invalid indexes.
>
> What exactly are you referring to? An index with indisvalid=false looks
> like this in my psql:
>
> "fooindex" btree (a) INVALID
>
> And even if it didn't, I don't think we should be adding more
> deficiencies to psql.

OK, thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

I'll add something similar for FKs.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services