From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID |
Date: | 2011-06-11 13:40:59 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTimWanXbnJpfP9bvt-G2MLN8uFfMTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
>> simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
>>
>> Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID
>>
>> This means that they can initially be added to a large existing table
>> without checking its initial contents, but new tuples must comply to
>> them; a separate pass invoked by ALTER TABLE / VALIDATE can verify
>> existing data and ensure it complies with the constraint, at which point
>> it is marked validated and becomes a normal part of the table ecosystem.
>>
>
> I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
> (get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
> exclude a relation on the basis of a CHECK constraint that is not
> currently VALID.
Do the standards explicitly stipulate an expected behaviour for this?
And does such a problem affect the invalid foreign key change too?
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2011-06-11 15:40:54 | Re: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2011-06-11 13:32:15 | Re: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID |