Tom Lane wrote: > I seem to recall pointing out upthread that the FK check triggers > are designed on the assumption that the constraint does hold > currently. Has any analysis been done on exactly how badly they'll > fail when it doesn't hold? I remain unconvinced that this behavior > is desirable. I saw your upstream comment, and it took a quick look at it. On the face of it, I couldn't see where checking that the parent exists on the insert of a child would be broken by the existence of other orphan children, nor could I see where checking for the absence of children on the delete of a parent would be broken by orphan children not related to the parent. With other things on my plate I didn't have time to do a rigorous check, but it was enough to make me wonder what you think depends on existing consistency or what could break. Even a vague hint of what sort of thing you think might go wrong might help people find problem code, if it actually exists. Now, I understand that a broken index, like one based on a function declared immutable which really isn't, could cause problems, but that seems orthogonal. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
