In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
constraints on foreign tables should have been excluded from consideration
in that commit, because the thinking behind the aforementioned commit
(that the constraint
On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote wrote:
> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
> declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
> constraints on foreign tables should have been excluded from consideration
> in that commit, because the thinki
On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote wrote:
>> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
>> declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
>> constraints on foreign tables should have been excluded from consi
On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
>>> declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
>>> constrai
On 2017/08/01 17:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
declared NOT VALID valid if cr
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/01 17:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
wrote:
> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decide
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
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,
On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> 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 som
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> 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 t
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> 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
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> 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
On 2017/08/04 2:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this beha
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Thanks for committing the code changes.
>
> About the documentation changes, it seems that the only places where any
> description of NOT VALID appears is ALTER TABLE, ALTER FOREIGN TABLE, and
> ALTER DOMAIN references pages. Even if the CREAT
13 matches
Mail list logo