From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Childs" <Blue(dot)Dragon(at)blueyonder(dot)co(dot)uk>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta |
Date: | 2003-08-15 06:43:11 |
Message-ID: | 25bd01c362f8$80842060$2800a8c0@mars |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> We've talked about stuff like that in the past, but we seem to generally
> get stuck about how to specify it. If we add it to the alter table add as
> an option then we're generating statements that are almost like a standard
> sql statement, but not quite, and some people didn't like that. A set
> option that only affected ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT wouldn't be too bad,
> but I'd be worried about making it apply to the normal checks as well
> (which I believe was suggested last time this came up). In any case,
> making the full checks faster for when you really do care isn't a bad
> plan. :)
How about having an 'i'm restoring' SET var:
SET data_restore = true;
Which means (among other things) that FK's aren't checked?
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-08-15 06:44:01 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2003-08-15 06:31:53 | Character conversion issues while upgrading database |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-08-15 06:44:01 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-08-15 06:16:50 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta |