Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED
Date: 2011-01-23 19:45:06
Message-ID: 1638.1295811906@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 20:33 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> \d table now only shows that there's a FOREIGN KEY, which might lead the
>> user to think that there should not be any values that don't exist in
>> the referenced table.

> Neither \d nor \di shows invalid indexes.

Even if that were true, it's a poor analogy, since a disabled foreign
key has visible *semantic* impact, whereas a disabled index doesn't.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-01-23 20:31:39 Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-23 19:18:57 Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2