On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat >> <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign >>> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that the >>> remote table that the foreign table points to has some rows which will >>> violet the constraint. So, +1. >> >> +1 from me, too. > > Alright, thanks. > > Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix, > backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this behavior change [1].
I could go either way on that. It's not inconceivable somebody could be unhappy about seeing this behavior change in a minor release. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
