On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Thanks for committing the code changes.
>
> About the documentation changes, it seems that the only places where any
> description of NOT VALID appears is ALTER TABLE, ALTER FOREIGN TABLE, and
> ALTER DOMAIN
On 2017/08/04 2:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
Attached is a patch. I think this could be
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
>>> backpatchable to
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
>> backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this behavior change [1].
> I could go either way on
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
>>>
On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
>> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that the
>> remote table that
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that the
> remote table that the foreign table points to has some rows which
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/01 17:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit
On 2017/08/01 17:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided
On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
>>> declared NOT
On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote wrote:
>> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
>> declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
>> constraints on foreign tables
On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote wrote:
> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
> declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
> constraints on foreign tables should have been excluded from consideration
> in
In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
constraints on foreign tables should have been excluded from consideration
in that commit, because the thinking behind the aforementioned commit
(that the
13 matches
Mail list logo