Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Would it be worthwhile to add a switch so that the foreign key test is
only used "if" they use the switch in conjunction with a -i?
I wouldn't object to providing that as a (non default) option.
O.k. I will take a look at what tha
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be worthwhile to add a switch so that the foreign key test is
> only used "if" they use the switch in conjunction with a -i?
I wouldn't object to providing that as a (non default) option.
The int8 change should be unnecessary in view of Ta
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
significantly.
That is kind of the point. Without foreign keys it is a flawed test
because you wouldn't be running in production without them and t
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
>> significantly.
> That is kind of the point. Without foreign keys it is a flawed test
> because you wouldn't be running in production without them and thus you
Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* The schema now uses foreign keys to more accurately reflect a finacial DDL
Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
significantly.
That is kind of the point. Without foreign keys it is a flawed test
be
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * The schema now uses foreign keys to more accurately reflect a finacial DDL
Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
significantly.
> * The history table now has a primary key that uses a serial
Ditto.
> * The respective
