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

On 1/23/2011 8:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 20:33 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> On 1/23/2011 8:23 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 19:50 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>>>> Another problem I found is that psql doesn't indicate in any way that a
>>>> FOREIGN KEY constraint is not validated yet.
>>>
>>> Should it?
>>> What command do you think needs changing?
>>
>> \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.

What exactly are you referring to? An index with indisvalid=false looks
like this in my psql:

"fooindex" btree (a) INVALID

And even if it didn't, I don't think we should be adding more
deficiencies to psql.

> Should we add validation for FKs when it is not there for indexes?
> My feeling was no.
>
> Desirable for both? Yes, but not as part of this patch.
>
>>> There is no option to invoke this yet from pg_restore, which seems
>>> likely to top the list of priorities. Would you agree?
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean with this. Could you be a bit more
>> elaborate?
>
> The purpose of this patch is performance. pg_restore will be faster if
> it uses this new feature, so I expect to add an option to reload data
> without validating FKs.

Ah. Right, that would make sense.

Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja