Re: AW: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump
От | Stephan Szabo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 007601bfe203$37858620$0c64010a@kick.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AW: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: AW: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> There's no need to disable NOT NULL, nor unique constraints either, > since those are purely local to a table --- if they're going to fail, > altering load order doesn't prevent it. The things you need to worry Is there a speed difference with doing a copy on a table with an index versus creating the index at the end? I've been assuming that the latter was faster (and that that was part of what he wanted) > about are constraint expressions that cause references to other tables > (perhaps indirectly via a function). Yeah, that's actually a big problem, since that's actually also a constraint on the other table as well, and as far as I know, we aren't yet constraining the other table. > If we had ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT then the problem would be largely > solved, I believe. This should be a minor exercise --- the heavy > lifting is already done, because heap.c's AddRelationRawConstraints() > is already set up to be invokable on a pre-existing relation. Also > the parser knows how to parse ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT ... I think > all that's missing is a few lines of glue code in command.c. Does the AddRelationRawConstraints() check that the constraint is satisified as well when you add it? It didn't look like it did, but I could be missing something. That's another requirement of ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT. That was the bit I wasn't sure how to do for other generic constraints when I added the foreign key one.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: