Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=ZkGjzZTJ-hrnJzPYLhM822ygUnvFBskQynJFJ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> writes: >> Regard the following lattice (direction from top to bottom): > >> 1 >> |\ >> 2 3 >> \|\ >> 4 5 >> \| >> 6 > >> When adding a constraint to 1, the proper coninhcount for that >> constraint on relation 6 is 2. But the code currently counts to 3, since >> 6 is reached by paths 1-2-4-5, 1-3-4-6, 1-3-5-6. > > Mph. I'm not sure that 3 is wrong. You have to consider what happens > during a DROP CONSTRAINT, which as far as I saw this patch didn't > address. The behavior of DROP CONSTRAINT matches the fine documentation. The behavior of ADD CONSTRAINT does not. Perhaps there's a definition of coninhcount that would make 3 the right answer, but (a) I'm not sure what that definition would be and (b) it's certainly not the one in the manual. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: