From: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
Date: | 2024-01-29 00:00:00 |
Message-ID: | CACJufxFt77Pg4DqjLmJ39Pdn-=cvHEMUG72W0QBK5iM9RjJaqg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I fixed your tests, some of your tests can be simplified, (mainly
primary key constraint is unnecessary for the failed tests)
also your foreign key patch test table, temporal_rng is created at
line 141, and we use it at around line 320.
it's hard to get the definition of temporal_rng. I drop the table
and recreate it.
So people can view the patch with tests more easily.
+ <para>
+ In a temporal foreign key, the delete/update will use
+ <literal>FOR PORTION OF</literal> semantics to constrain the
+ effect to the bounds being deleted/updated in the referenced row.
+ </para>
in v24-0003-Add-temporal-FOREIGN-KEYs.patch
<literal>FOR PORTION OF</literal> not yet implemented, so we should
not mention it.
+ <para>
+ If the last column is marked with <literal>PERIOD</literal>,
+ it must be a period or range column, and the referenced table
+ must have a temporal primary key.
can we change "it must be a period or range column" to "it must be a
range column", maybe we can add it on another patch.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-refactor-temporal-FOREIGN-KEYs-test.based_on_v24 | application/octet-stream | 14.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-01-29 00:09:48 | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |
Previous Message | jian he | 2024-01-28 23:50:00 | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |