Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of sáb jun 18 23:53:17 -0400 2011:
I agree. That's pretty contorted. How about something like this:
Thanks Jaime and Robert. I have pushed this patch with these fixes.
--
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Yeah, nothing serious. Updated patch attached. The wording in the doc
changes could probably use some look over.
looks good to
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
looks good to me... at least it compiles, and function as i would expect...
tomorrow i will read the code more carefully and look at the docs, but
probably this is just fine to be commited...
I think that this
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Yeah, nothing serious. Updated patch attached. The wording in the doc
changes could probably use some look over.
looks good to me... at least it compiles, and function as i would expect...
tomorrow i will read
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion
On 15 June 2011 07:09, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Jaime Casanova's message of mié jun 15 02:09:15 -0400 2011:
psql \h says (among other things) for ALTER TABLE
ADD table_constraint
ADD table_constraint_using_index
ADD table_constraint [ NOT VALID ]
ADD table_constraint appears twice and isn't true that all
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Hmm, I think this means we need to send a sinval message to invalidate
cached plans when a constraint is validated. I'll see about this.
I feel like that really ought to be happening automatically, as a
result
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 15 12:53:59 -0400 2011:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Hmm, I think this means we need to send a sinval message to invalidate
cached plans when a constraint is validated. I'll see about this.
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 15 12:53:59 -0400 2011:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Hmm, I think this means we need to send a sinval message to invalidate
cached plans when
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié jun 15 14:49:04 -0400 2011:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 15 12:53:59 -0400 2011:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Hmm, I think this
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Here's an updated patch fixing all of the above. I stole your first
test case and added it to regression, after some editorialization.
I've probably created some merge conflicts for you in process of fixing
the FOREIGN KEY NOT VALID patch, but
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
(get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
exclude a
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
Enable CHECK
Alvaro, Dean,
I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
(get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
exclude a relation on the basis of a CHECK constraint that is not
currently VALID.
Ouch, yeah, thanks for pointing that out. Fortunately
I can see why you would want that, but I'd say that's a separate feature
you need to explicitly request when creating the constraint. Consider
what happens in the old data is garbage, but I want the new data to be
validated use case if we allow constraint exclusion on NOT VALID
constraints.
On 14/06/2011 01:11, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hmmm. Is this the behavior we want with NOT VALID constraints though?
I know that if I'm pouring 100m rows into a new partition as part of a
repartitioning scheme, I don't want to *ever* check them if I know
they're correct because of how I created the
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun jun 13 18:11:54 -0400 2011:
Alvaro, Dean,
I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
(get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
exclude a relation on the basis of a CHECK constraint that is not
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun jun 13 18:11:54 -0400 2011:
Alvaro, Dean,
I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
(get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID
This means that they can initially be
On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
Enable CHECK
On 11 June 2011 14:40, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
simple regression tests for
On 11 June 2011 16:40, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 June 2011 14:40, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here's a complete patch with
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mié jun 01 20:56:12 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié jun 01 19:48:44 -0400 2011:
Is this expected?
[ pg_dump fails to preserve not-valid status of
Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of sáb jun 04 09:11:52 -0400 2011:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Actually, it turns out that NOT VALID foreign keys were already buggy
here, and fixing them automatically fixes this case as well, because
On 2 June 2011 17:48, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mié jun 01 20:56:12 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié jun 01 19:48:44 -0400 2011:
Is this expected?
[ pg_dump fails to preserve not-valid status of
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 12:47:58 -0400 2011:
On 2 June 2011 17:48, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Actually, it turns out that NOT VALID foreign keys were already buggy
here, and fixing them automatically fixes this case as well, because the
fix
On 3 June 2011 17:58, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 12:47:58 -0400 2011:
On 2 June 2011 17:48, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Actually, it turns out that NOT VALID foreign keys were already buggy
here, and
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 13:45:57 -0400 2011:
On 3 June 2011 17:58, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 12:47:58 -0400 2011:
Nice work Alvaro :) Shouldn't patches be sent to -hackers instead of
the
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mié jun 01 20:56:12 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié jun 01 19:48:44 -0400 2011:
Is this expected?
[ pg_dump fails to preserve not-valid status of constraints ]
Certainly not.
Shouldn't the constraint be dumped as not
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mar may 31 20:18:18 -0400 2011:
test=# CREATE DOMAIN things AS INT CHECK (VALUE 5);
CREATE DOMAIN
test=# CREATE TABLE abc (id SERIAL, stuff things);
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence abc_id_seq for
serial column abc.id
CREATE TABLE
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID
This means that they can initially be
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié jun 01 19:48:44 -0400 2011:
Is this expected?
[ pg_dump fails to preserve not-valid status of constraints ]
Certainly not.
Shouldn't the constraint be dumped as not valid too??
Sure, I'll implement that tomorrow.
--
Álvaro Herrera
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
VALID
seems you forgot to add the patch itself
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mar may 31 12:39:48 -0400 2011:
Excerpts from Jaime Casanova's message of mar may 31 12:24:09 -0400 2011:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint
Excerpts from Jaime Casanova's message of mar may 31 12:24:09 -0400 2011:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
VALID
seems you forgot to add the patch itself
oops ... another
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys. That is, you
create the constraint without scanning the table and after it is
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as
NOT VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys.
That is, you create the constraint without scanning the table and
after it is committed, it is enforced for new rows;
Here it is -- as a context patch this time, as well.
--
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
0001-Enable-CHECK-constraints-to-be-declared-NOT-VALID.patch
Description: Binary
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:35:01AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org wrote:
This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as
NOT VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys.
That is, you create the constraint without
Excerpts from Ross J. Reedstrom's message of mar may 31 14:02:04 -0400 2011:
Follows from one of the practical maxims of databases: The data is
always dirty Being able to have the constraints enforced at least for
new data allows you to at least fence the bad data, and have a shot at
fixing
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Ross J. Reedstrom's message of mar may 31 14:02:04 -0400 2011:
Follows from one of the practical maxims of databases: The data is
always dirty Being able to have the constraints enforced at least
On 31 May 2011 18:43, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here it is -- as a context patch this time, as well.
--
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
There
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Ross J. Reedstrom's message of mar may 31 14:02:04 -0400 2011:
Follows from one of the practical maxims of databases: The data is
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mar may 31 20:18:18 -0400 2011:
On 31 May 2011 18:43, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Here it is -- as a context patch this time, as well.
There is this scenario:
test=# CREATE DOMAIN things AS INT CHECK (VALUE 5);
CREATE DOMAIN
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:04:07PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys. That is, you
create the constraint without scanning the table and after it is
committed, it is
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of mar may 31 21:42:08 -0400 2011:
A colleague brought up an interesting idea that I think is worth
exploring for all NOT VALID constraints, to wit, is there some way
(via SQL) to find which rows violate which constraints? I'm picturing
some kind of
49 matches
Mail list logo