From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Peter Childs <Blue(dot)Dragon(at)blueyonder(dot)co(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta) |
Date: | 2003-09-29 03:48:48 |
Message-ID: | 3F77ABA0.4070600@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
You could just as easily argue that the lack of integrity testing at
data load time was equally a bug.
I think we need someway of telling postgres to suppress a foreign key check.
The main problem is that the foreign key column is often not indexed.
Chris
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>
>>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, we haven't even *got* a proposed patch yet, but yeah we should
>>>>tread carefully.
>>
>>>OK. What releases had this slow restore problem?
>>
>>We introduced it in 7.3 --- before that, FKs were simply dumped as
>>"create trigger" commands, and there was no check overhead. So arguably
>>it is a bug; a performance bug maybe, but that's still a bug. No one
>>has yet gone through a dump/reload cycle in which they had to face this
>>penalty.
>
>
> Now that is a strong argument. I knew you would find one. :-)
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dennis Gearon | 2003-09-29 04:02:44 | Re: Modification Dates |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-29 03:41:53 | Re: PostgreSQL SSL communication with SecureTcpClient (Ssl |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-09-29 03:56:00 | Re: 2-phase commit |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-09-29 03:26:01 | Alter Table Column Datatype |