From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Neil Anderson <neil(at)postgrescompare(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: v10beta pg_catalog diagrams |
Date: | 2017-06-14 04:05:24 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCHTBBsW+0xE6bvSyLW4wg5nG-S46Eg-XbMm9rOPUudcA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-06-14 5:53 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
>:
> On 6/13/17 17:08, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I wondered before if we shouldn't introduce "information only"
> > unenforced foreign key constraints for the catalogs. We kind of
> > manually do that via oidjoins, it'd be nicer if we'd a function
> > rechecking fkeys, and the fkeys were in the catalog...
>
> I don't see why we couldn't just add a full complement of primary and
> foreign key constraints (and unique constraints and perhaps some check
> constraints). The argument is that they wouldn't normally do anything,
> but they would help with documentation and browsing tools, and they
> wouldn't hurt anything.
>
>
These constraints can slowdown creating/dropping database objects - mainly
temp tables.
Regards
Pavel
> --
> Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-06-14 04:51:54 | Re: Dropping partitioned table drops a previously detached partition |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-06-14 04:04:17 | Re: pg_receivewal and messages printed in non-verbose mode |