| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, wangshuo(at)highgo(dot)com(dot)cn, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ENABLE/DISABLE CONSTRAINT NAME |
| Date: | 2013-10-09 18:10:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobOJSLHxN9fCzwK-eF0XneXPAoNGMKPEWmDmY2qL53TwQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 11:58 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
>> Hmm not sure i understand this argument either: this patch doesn't
>> allow disabling a primary key. It only supports FKs and CHECK
>> constraints explicitly.
>
> Well, as soon as the patch for cataloging not-null constraints as check
> constraints is available, it will be possible to create views that
> depend functionally on check constraints. Then you'll have the same
> problem there.
>
> It's also not clear why this patch only supports foreign keys and check
> constraints. Maybe that's what was convenient to implement, but it's
> not a principled solution to the general issue that constraints can be
> involved in dependencies.
I agree with these concerns, as well as those raised by Tom Lane and
Fabien COELHO, and I think they indicate that we shouldn't accept this
patch. So I'm marking this as Rejected.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2013-10-09 18:11:30 | Re: Urgent Help Required |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-09 18:07:55 | Re: Cube extension point support // GSoC'13 |