Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 11/13/14 5:07 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 13 November 2014 00:20, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > > > >> Isn't the real use-case here that if constraints were valid when you dumped > >> then we shouldn't have to *any* re-validate when we load? (Though, we'd > >> have > >> to be careful of that with CHECK because that can call user code...) > > > > Yes, that is the use case this patch would improve considerably. > > But your patch doesn't really address that. It just leaves the > constraints as invalid, and someone will have to revalidate them later > (how?). What Jim was describing was a mode that creates the constraints > as valid but doesn't actually validate them. I can see both sides of > that kind of feature.
This might lead to users introducing invalid data by way of declaring constants as valid but not checked by the system; if they turn out to be invalid, the final state is a mess. I would only buy such a feature if we had some way to pass down the knowledge of the constraint being valid in the original system through some other means; say emit a CRC of the copy data in the pg_dump output that can be verified while loading, and only allow unvalidated constraints to be marked VALID if the sum matches. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
