On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
If I find the time maybe Ill submit something along these lines for
the next commit fest.
So i just picked up the non-inherited constraints patch and quickly
ran into the same problem and found this thread.
I think it
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 09:17, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
If I find the time maybe Ill submit something along these lines for
the next commit fest.
So i just picked up the non-inherited constraints patch and quickly
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
So i just picked up the non-inherited constraints patch and quickly
ran into the same problem and found this thread.
I think it makes sense to hold off on this patch until these issues
are resolved. Because we really do
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I see the problem, and I now agree that it's the DROP CONSTRAINT
code that is buggy.
Want me to roll this fix in as part of the alter table only constraint
patch? Or keep it split out? We might want to backpatch to at
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 07:53, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The only way we could
trip up in that case is if there were two identically named
constraints. We'd have to visit the first tuple, update it, then
visit the second tuple, recurse (thus incrementing the command
counter),
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 07:53, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The only way we could
trip up in that case is if there were two identically named
constraints. We'd have to visit the first tuple, update it, then
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 09:50, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
My only thought is
perhaps we should add that missing unique index on (conrelid,
conname). If we are not going to support duplicate names in the code,
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
tldr:
Seems to be broken by
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
:
commit
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 07:24, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
tldr:
Seems to be broken by
tldr:
Seems to be broken by
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
:
commit 4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
Author: Robert Haas rh...@postgresql.org
Date: Mon Jun 27 10:27:17 2011 -0400
Avoid having two copies of the
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
tldr:
Seems to be broken by
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
:
commit 4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
Author: Robert Haas
11 matches
Mail list logo