On 3 June 2011 17:58, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 12:47:58 -0400 2011: >> On 2 June 2011 17:48, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> > Actually, it turns out that NOT VALID foreign keys were already buggy >> > here, and fixing them automatically fixes this case as well, because the >> > fix involves touching pg_get_constraintdef to dump the flag. This also >> > gets it into psql's \d. Patch attached. >> > >> > (Maybe the changes in psql's describe.c should be reverted, not sure.) >> >> Nice work Alvaro :) Shouldn't patches be sent to -hackers instead of >> the obsolete -patches list? Plus I'm a bit confused as to why the >> patch looks like an email instead of a patch. > > Did I really email pgsql-patches? If so, I didn't notice -- but I don't > see it (and the archives seem to agree with me, there's no email after > 2008-10).
My bad, I was reading your patch which contained an email subject beginning with [PATCH] (similar to mailing list subject prefixes) which, if I had given it any further though, doesn't mean it's on the -patches list. -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers