| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature |
| Date: | 2025-01-31 13:40:50 |
| Message-ID: | 202501311340.knics25bato5@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Jan-31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> But if the constraint is NOT VALID and later marked as NOT ENFORCED,
> what is expected behaviour while changing it to ENFORCED?
I think what you want is a different mode that would be ENFORCED NOT
VALID, which would be an extension of the standard, because the standard
does not support the concept of NOT VALID. So while I think what you
want is nice, I'm not sure that this patch necessarily must implement
it.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2025-01-31 13:43:18 | RE: Proposal: Filter irrelevant change before reassemble transactions during logical decoding |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2025-01-31 13:34:48 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |