Re: Temparary disable constraint

From: "Adnan DURSUN" <a_dursun(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Temparary disable constraint
Date: 2007-01-18 22:09:17
Message-ID: BAY106-DAV119B8C02FE8CD82F7D0573FAAA0@phx.gbl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Adnan DURSUN" <a_dursun(at)hotmail(dot)com>; <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Temparary disable constraint

>> Not easily, because the view are bound to the object id of the tables
>> involved.
>
> The trick would be I think to bind them to individual columns, so if view
> V doesn't mention column C then dropping C has no effect on it.
>
> That's a lot more dependencies to track of course.
>
Is that not possible that all objects have a column that says whether
object state is ok or not.
When any session wants to try to execute any DML on object, then the
Postgres checks that state column.
If object state is not ok then Postgres raises an exception.

Best Regards

Adnan DURSUN
ASRIN Bilisim Ltd.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2007-01-18 22:30:41 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix failure due to accessing an
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2007-01-18 17:24:39 Re: Design notes for EquivalenceClasses