From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FK NOT VALID can't be deferrable? |
Date: | 2011-06-15 08:21:45 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=xV-xitHP5fEv8c0eKK+rh9iYW=w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 June 2011 07:56, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Testing the CHECK NOT VALID patch i found $subject... is this intended?
>
I just noticed that too, and was about to raise it as a bug.
If it is intended, then it's not documented.
I noticed it while browsing gram.y, and thought it looks a bit ugly
having 2 almost identical code blocks, one for the normal case and one
for NOT VALID. The second block doesn't have a
ConstraintAttributeSpec, so won't allow any deferrable options.
Aside from the ugliness of the code, we can't just add a
ConstraintAttributeSpec to the second block, because that would
enforce an order to these options.
OTOH adding NOT VALID to ConstraintAttributeSpec is a bit invasive,
since it's used in quite a few places, including CREATE TABLE, where
NOT VALID is never allowed.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-06-15 08:25:51 | Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build |
Previous Message | Rainer Pruy | 2011-06-15 08:13:18 | Re: procpid? |