From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Henk Enting <h(dot)d(dot)enting(at)mgrid(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance |
Date: | 2010-07-30 15:48:40 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=ZkGjzZTJ-hrnJzPYLhM822ygUnvFBskQynJFJ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Regard the following lattice (direction from top to bottom):
>
>> 1
>> |\
>> 2 3
>> \|\
>> 4 5
>> \|
>> 6
>
>> When adding a constraint to 1, the proper coninhcount for that
>> constraint on relation 6 is 2. But the code currently counts to 3, since
>> 6 is reached by paths 1-2-4-5, 1-3-4-6, 1-3-5-6.
>
> Mph. I'm not sure that 3 is wrong. You have to consider what happens
> during a DROP CONSTRAINT, which as far as I saw this patch didn't
> address.
The behavior of DROP CONSTRAINT matches the fine documentation. The
behavior of ADD CONSTRAINT does not. Perhaps there's a definition of
coninhcount that would make 3 the right answer, but (a) I'm not sure
what that definition would be and (b) it's certainly not the one in
the manual.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-07-30 16:21:49 | Re: merge command - GSoC progress |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-30 15:39:10 | Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance |