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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED
Date: 2011-02-08 03:50:19
Message-ID: AANLkTinFDSc1e7KV1hn0c0Dwv=-q09QYc5bYA6d0kynZ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Patch to implement the proposed feature attached, for CFJan2011.
>>
>> 2 sub-command changes:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE foo ADD FOREIGN KEY fkoo ... NOT VALID;
>>
>> ALTER TABLE foo VALIDATE CONSTRAINT fkoo;
>
> This patch, which seems to be the latest version, no longer applies,
> and has not been updated based on the previous provided review
> comments.
>
> Also, this diff hunk looks scary to me:
>
> +       if (must_use_query)
> +               ereport(ERROR,
> +                               (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
> +                                errmsg("cannot SELECT from primary
> key of relation \"%s\"",
> +                                               RelationGetRelationName(rel))));
> +
>
> What's the justification for that?

Since this patch was reviewed on January 23rd by Marko Tiikkaja and
more briefly on February 3rd by me, and has not been updated, I am
marking it Returned with Feedback.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-02-08 03:59:03 Re: Named restore points
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-08 03:46:28 btree_gist (was: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof)