2017-06-14 19:49 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>: > On 2017-06-14 06:05:24 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2017-06-14 5:53 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut < > peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com > > >: > > > > > On 6/13/17 17:08, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > I wondered before if we shouldn't introduce "information only" > > > > unenforced foreign key constraints for the catalogs. We kind of > > > > manually do that via oidjoins, it'd be nicer if we'd a function > > > > rechecking fkeys, and the fkeys were in the catalog... > > > > > > I don't see why we couldn't just add a full complement of primary and > > > foreign key constraints (and unique constraints and perhaps some check > > > constraints). The argument is that they wouldn't normally do anything, > > > but they would help with documentation and browsing tools, and they > > > wouldn't hurt anything. > > Well, unique constraints are a bit more complicated because they rely on > an index, and we wouldn't e.g. maintain indexes with WHERE clauses or > other expressions correctly. I'd be a bit wary of declaring such > indexes as actually being fully valid, because we have planner logic > that does planning based on various constraints now, it'd certainly be > annoying if some "re-check constraint" type queries would actually have > their joins optimized away or such... > > > These constraints can slowdown creating/dropping database objects - > mainly > > temp tables. > > How so? >
execution RI triggers Regards Pavel > > - Andres >
