RE: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-22 Thread Stephan Szabo
(This machine still is having trouble with mx records :( ) On Mon, 21 May 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Actually this brings up a problem I'm having with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT and since it mostly affects you with DROP CONSTRAINT, I'll bring it up here. If you have a table

RE: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-22 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Actually, I realized that in the face of multiple inheritance, dynamically generated constraint names still fail with our current default naming scheme. What happens when two tables both have a $1 and then you inherit from both of

Re: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-14 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do I use instead of the CatalogIndexInsert command to tell the index that a tuple has been removed? Nothing. The tuple isn't really gone, and neither are its index entries. Getting rid of them later is VACUUM's problem. BTW, there

RE: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-14 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Lastly, inheritance? I plan to leave out worrying about inheritance for starters, especially since it seems that half the constraints when added don't even propagate themselves properly to child tables... Actually this brings up a problem

RE: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-14 Thread Philip Warner
At 19:50 14/05/01 -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote: If it's $2 in the parent, but the child already has a $2 defined, what should be done? The reason this affects drop constraint is knowing what to drop in the child. If you drop $2 on the parent, what constraint(s) on the child get dropped? AFAIK,

Re: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-14 Thread Tom Lane
Philip Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is worth considering skipping the entire 'copy to children' approach? Something like: pg_constraints(constraint_id, constraint_name, constraint_details) pg_relation_constraints(rel_id, constraint_id) Then, when we drop constraint 'FRED', the

RE: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-14 Thread Philip Warner
At 19:50 14/05/01 -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote: If it's $2 in the parent, but the child already has a $2 defined, what should be done? The reason this affects drop constraint is knowing what to drop in the child. If you drop $2 on the parent, what constraint(s) on the child get dropped? It is

Re: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-14 Thread Tom Lane
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually this brings up a problem I'm having with ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT and since it mostly affects you with DROP CONSTRAINT, I'll bring it up here. If you have a table that has check constraints or is inherited from multiple tables, what's the

Re: [HACKERS] Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion

2001-05-14 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote: Philip Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is worth considering skipping the entire 'copy to children' approach? Something like: pg_constraints(constraint_id, constraint_name, constraint_details) pg_relation_constraints(rel_id, constraint_id)