Hello again patchers,
Here is a proposed patch against 7.4.1 to check exact match
of foreign key types wrt the referenced keys, and to show
a warning if this is not the case.
This is an attempt to prevent stupid bugs such as :
CREATE TABLE foo(id INT4 NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY);
CREATE TABLE bla
Fabien COELHO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is a proposed patch against 7.4.1 to check exact match
> of foreign key types wrt the referenced keys, and to show
> a warning if this is not the case.
I think that this concern may be obsolete in CVS tip, at least for the
cases where we have indexa
This patch adds a few additional tags to the docs, where they
seemed appropriate. I applied this patch to HEAD.
(Suggetions for additional cross refs that would be useful are
welcome; I just added the first few I noticed.)
-Neil
Index: doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml
Fabien COELHO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I must admit that I do not understand your point.
> I wish I would have a WARNING if a foreign key is not declared exactly as
> the key it references.
The reason why people want such a warning is that the RI checks tend to
be slow if it's not the case.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > > Here is a proposed patch against 7.4.1 to check exact match
> > > of foreign key types wrt the referenced keys, and to show
> > > a warning if this is not the case.
> >
> > I think that this concern may be obsolete in CVS tip,
>
> I just get the curre
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm really not sure that it makes sense to warn for the fk cases where the
> semantics should be correct (if they're not we need to fix it or make it
> an error) but in which an error might have been made by the user because
> the types are different give
> > I wish I would have a WARNING if a foreign key is not declared exactly as
> > the key it references.
>
> The reason why people want such a warning is that the RI checks tend to
> be slow if it's not the case. Accordingly, the warning should only
> appear if the check is actually going to be s
> I can think of several cases where it might be reasonable for the types
> to be different.
Sure. It's all about a warning, not about an error.
--
Fabien Coelho - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your f
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> . changed source port reporting from host:port to host(port) to avoid
> IP6 address ambiguity.
I have no idea how widespread this is, but recent versions of BIND write
it this way:
127.0.0.1#953
::1#953
Personally I'd kind of like to see host:port
Jon Jensen wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
. changed source port reporting from host:port to host(port) to avoid
IP6 address ambiguity.
I have no idea how widespread this is, but recent versions of BIND write
it this way:
127.0.0.1#953
::1#953
Personally I'd kind of
10 matches
Mail list logo
