On 2016/07/29 23:50, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> The comment seems to have been copied from ATExecAddColumn, which says: >> >> /* >> * If we are told not to recurse, there had better not be any >> - * child tables; else the addition would put them out of step. >> >> For ATExecValidateConstraint, it should say something like: >> >> + * child tables; else validating the constraint would put them >> + * out of step. >> >> Attached patch fixes it. > > I agree that the current comment is wrong, but what does "out of step" > actually mean here, anyway? I think this isn't very clear.
Like Tom explained over at [1], I guess it means if a constraint is marked validated in parent, the same constraint in all the children should have been marked validated as well. Validating just the parent's copy seems to break this invariant. I admit though that I don't know if the phrase "out of step" conveys that. Thanks, Amit [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13658.1470072749%40sss.pgh.pa.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
