On 2013-10-10 02:10, Robert Haas wrote:
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.
On 2013-10-11 06:48, Jim Nasby wrote:
I see a use case for disabling FKs and CHECKS but not PKs or UNIQUE
constraints: FKs and CHECKS don't depend on additional state
information (namely an index), so >it's easy to just disable them
temporarily and then re-enable them. The same isn't true about a PK or
UNIQUE constraint.
Of course we could decide to do something more complex to handle
disabling PK/UNIQUE... though at that point it'd be better to just
allow temporarily disabling >any index. But I think there's an argument
to be made for that being beyond the scope of disabling "simple"
constraints... it's a pretty high bar to set that we ?>won't accept a
patch that disables simple constraints but not those involving indexes.
Thanks for your reply.
I found my patch's weakness.I think the DISABLE/ENABLE patch is
necessary.
I will pack a new patch for all the constraints to commit.
Thanks again.
Yours,
Wang Shuo
HighGo Software Co.,Ltd.
October 11, 2013
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
