Re: possible constraint bug?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: possible constraint bug?
Date: 2000-10-12 19:24:17
Message-ID: 200010121924.PAA13798@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Is this addressed in 7.1?

>
> This is particular to postgres, although the
> SQL behavior would have either dropped
> the constraint or prevented the drop in the
> first place.
>
> There's been some talk of an ALTER FUNCTION
> that would let you change the code behind
> a function without a drop/create.
>
> Generally you have to re-generate things that
> reference functions that have been dropped
> and re-created. This is a pain right now
> for constraints, since it requires a dump
> and restore of the table.
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Thomas Swan wrote:
>
> >
> > Using Postgresql 7.0.2 (Linux x86, 2.2.16)
> >
> > CERATE FUNCTION foo(text)
> >
> > CREATE TABLE bar(
> > fud TEXT CHECK (foo(fud))
> > );
> >
> > DROP FUNCTION foo(TEXT);
> > CREATE FUNCTION foo( .....);
> >
> > INSERT INTO bar VALUES ('Hey'); results in the following error
> >
> > ERROR init_fcache: Cache lookup failed for procedure 128384
> >
> > Is this particular to postgres or is this a normal SQLxx standard behavior?
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alfred Perlstein 2000-10-12 19:32:43 Re: pg_dump possible fix, need testers. (was: Re: pg_dump disaster)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-10-12 19:14:11 Re: pg_dump possible fix, need testers. (was: Re: pg_dump disaster)