From: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allow NOT VALID foreign key constraints on partitioned tables. |
Date: | 2025-01-22 06:12:15 |
Message-ID: | CAAJ_b97_zJvzmLJS8AAzGFEYAAMbm5KM8ix4VPxaSO=ptkYx6Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:36 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
>
> Suppose I have a hierarchy like this
>
> parent
> |
> child
> /\
> / \
> / grandchild2
> /
> grandchild1
>
> and I have a validated constraint on grandchild1 and an invalid
> constraint on child. What happens if I add a constraint on parent? In
> my understanding, it should not attempt to revalidate the constraint on
> grandchild1, because it's known valid; but I don't think I see code that
> would skip validation there. That is, QueueFKConstraintValidation does
> its thing unconditionally (esp. recursing to children), which seems
> wrong.
>
You’re correct; it’s fixed in the attached version, along with an
assert(!convalidated) in QueueFKConstraintValidation(), and I’ve
included tests to cover the change. Thanks for reviewing this patch.
Regards,
Amul
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v3-0002-Allow-NOT-VALID-foreign-key-constraints-on-partit.patch | application/octet-stream | 22.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-01-22 06:20:41 | Re: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns |
Previous Message | Japin Li | 2025-01-22 06:09:48 | Re: [RFC] Lock-free XLog Reservation from WAL |