On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 10:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The thing to keep in mind here is that EVERY property of a foreign
>> table is subject to change at any arbitrary point in time, without our
>> knowledge. ... Why should CHECK constraint
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 10:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The thing to keep in mind here is that EVERY property of a foreign
> table is subject to change at any arbitrary point in time, without our
> knowledge. ... Why should CHECK constraints be any different than,
> say, column types?
So, let's
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 16:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> #3 for foreign tables.
>
> I'm skeptical of that approach for two reasons:
>
> (1) It will be hard to inform users which constraints are enforced and
> which aren't.
The thing to keep in
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 16:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> #3 for foreign tables.
I'm skeptical of that approach for two reasons:
(1) It will be hard to inform users which constraints are enforced and
which aren't.
(2) It will be hard for users to understand the planner benefits or the
consequences
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 15:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > I mean, what are NOT NULL in foreign tables for? Are they harmed or
>> > helped by having pg_constraint rows?
>>
>> As I've
On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 15:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I mean, what are NOT NULL in foreign tables for? Are they harmed or
> > helped by having pg_constraint rows?
>
> As I've mentioned when this has come up before, I think that
> con
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie ago 17 15:44:29 -0400 2012:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > I mean, what are NOT NULL in foreign tables for? Are they harmed or
>> > helped by having pg_constrain
On 17-08-2012 16:44, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I mean, what are NOT NULL in foreign tables for? Are they harmed or
>> helped by having pg_constraint rows?
>
> As I've mentioned when this has come up before, I think that
> constraints on fore
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie ago 17 15:44:29 -0400 2012:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I mean, what are NOT NULL in foreign tables for? Are they harmed or
> > helped by having pg_constraint rows?
>
> As I've mentioned when this has come up before, I
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I mean, what are NOT NULL in foreign tables for? Are they harmed or
> helped by having pg_constraint rows?
As I've mentioned when this has come up before, I think that
constraints on foreign tables should be viewed as declarative
statement
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I mean, what are NOT NULL in foreign tables for?
There was previous discussion about that, in the context of check
constraints in general, but I don't believe we reached consensus.
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1038.1331738...@sss.pgh.pa.us
There's also an op
11 matches
Mail list logo
