On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 10:08 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Jan-25, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025, at 6:00 AM, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > > Hello Álvaro,
> > >
> > > Please look at the script that produces an error starting from b663b9436:
> >
> > Ah yes, this is my bug:
On 2025-Jan-25, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025, at 6:00 AM, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > Hello Álvaro,
> >
> > Please look at the script that produces an error starting from b663b9436:
>
> Ah yes, this is my bug: I moved a CCI where it became conditional.
> Will fix, thanks for the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025, at 6:00 AM, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hello Álvaro,
>
> Please look at the script that produces an error starting from b663b9436:
Ah yes, this is my bug: I moved a CCI where it became conditional. Will fix,
thanks for the test case.
Hello Álvaro,
23.01.2025 17:04, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
OK thanks, looks good, I have pushed it now with some trivial
amendments.
Please look at the script that produces an error starting from b663b9436:
CREATE TABLE st (a int, primary key (a));
CREATE TABLE pt (a int,
FOREIGN KEY (a) REFERENC
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 7:46 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> > OK thanks, looks good, I have pushed it now with some trivial
> > amendments.
>
> Looks like some of the queries need ORDER BY for stability.
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> OK thanks, looks good, I have pushed it now with some trivial
> amendments.
Looks like some of the queries need ORDER BY for stability.
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=morepork&dt=2025-01-23%2023%3A35%3A57
On 2025-Jan-22, Amul Sul wrote:
> You’re correct; it’s fixed in the attached version, along with an
> assert(!convalidated) in QueueFKConstraintValidation(), and I’ve
> included tests to cover the change. Thanks for reviewing this patch.
OK thanks, looks good, I have pushed it now with some trivi
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:36 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
> Suppose I have a hierarchy like this
>
> parent
> |
> child
>/\
> / \
> /grandchild2
> /
> grandchild1
>
> and I have a validated constraint on grandchild1 and an invalid
> constraint on c
Suppose I have a hierarchy like this
parent
|
child
/\
/ \
/grandchild2
/
grandchild1
and I have a validated constraint on grandchild1 and an invalid
constraint on child. What happens if I add a constraint on parent? In
my understanding, it sho
On 2025-Jan-15, Amul Sul wrote:
> I made the minor changes to the attached version and rebased it
> against the latest master(9a45a89c38f).
Pushed 0001, thanks.
--
Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:53 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
I made the minor changes to the attached version and rebased it
against the latest master(9a45a89c38f).
Regards,
Amul
v2-0001-Refactor-Split-ATExecValidateConstraint.patch
Description: Binary data
v2-0002-Allow-NOT-VALID-foreign-key-constraint
On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 12:11 AM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> When adding a new FK constraint or attaching a partitioned table, where
> matching FK constraints are merged, we allow the parent constraint to be NOT
> VALID while the child constrai
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Amul Sul wrote:
> When adding a new FK constraint or attaching a partitioned table, where
> matching FK constraints are merged, we allow the parent constraint to be NOT
> VALID while the child constraint remains VALID, which is harmless. However,
> the
> reverse
uple(tuple);
- copy_con = (Form_pg_constraint) GETSTRUCT(copyTuple);
- copy_con->convalidated = true;
- CatalogTupleUpdate(conrel, ©Tuple->t_self, copyTuple);
-
- InvokeObjectPostAlterHook(ConstraintRelationId, con->oid, 0);
-
- heap_freetuple(copyTuple);
-
ObjectAddressSet(address,
14 matches
Mail list logo
