From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, wangshuo(at)highgo(dot)com(dot)cn |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: ENABLE/DISABLE CONSTRAINT NAME |
Date: | 2013-09-24 09:58:25 |
Message-ID: | BB11006AFB4CF43C55C89345@apophis.credativ.lan |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On 13. September 2013 20:17:19 -0400 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> You're missing the point. Peter wasn't worried that your patch throws
> an error; he's concerned about the fact that it doesn't.
>
> In PostgreSQL, you can only create the following view because test1
> has a primary key over column a:
>
> => create table test1 (a int constraint pk primary key, b text);
> => create view test2 as select a, b from test1 group by a;
> => alter table test1 drop constraint pk;
>
> The reason that, if the primary key weren't there, it would be
> ambiguous which row should be returned as among multiple values where
> a is equal and b is not. If you can disable the constraint, then you
> can create precisely that problem.
Hmm not sure i understand this argument either: this patch doesn't allow
disabling a primary key. It only supports FKs and CHECK constraints
explicitly.
--
Thanks
Bernd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-09-24 10:39:39 | Re: Reasoning behind LWLOCK_PADDED_SIZE/increase it to a full cacheline |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2013-09-24 09:42:21 | Re: record identical operator |