Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re:
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re:
Дата
Msg-id
25273.1116604306@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: (Simon Riggs)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Preserving data after updates Berend Tober <btober@seaworthysys.com>
Re: Preserving data after updates Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Preserving data after updates Berend Tober <btober@seaworthysys.com>
Re: Preserving data after updates Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Preserving data after updates Berend Tober <btober@seaworthysys.com>
Re: Preserving data after updates Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Preserving data after updates Berend Tober <btober@computer.org>
Re: Preserving data after updates Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Preserving data after updates Berend Tober <btober@seaworthysys.com>
Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: Preserving data after updates) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Berend Tober <btober@seaworthysys.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: Berend Tober <btober@seaworthysys.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: Preserving data after updates) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Simon Riggs writes: > Doing anything to restrict dropping of inherited constraints seems like > wasted effort and potentially annoying anyhow. Uh, why? Arguably the constraints are as much part of the parent table definition as the columns themselves. If you had "check (f1 > 0)" in the definition of a table, wouldn't you be pretty surprised to select from it and find rows with f1 < 0? regression=# create table parent(f1 int check (f1 > 0)); CREATE TABLE regression=# create table child() inherits(parent); CREATE TABLE regression=# alter table child drop constraint parent_f1_check; ALTER TABLE regression=# insert into child values(-1); INSERT 0 1 regression=# select * from parent; f1 ---- -1 (1 row) I think a good argument can be made that the above behavior is a bug, and that the ALTER command should have been rejected. We've gone to great lengths to make sure you can't ALTER a child table to make it incompatible with the parent in terms of the column names and types; shouldn't this be true of check constraints as well? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления