On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> So i just picked up the non-inherited constraints patch and quickly
>> ran into the same problem and found this thread.
>>
>> I think it makes sense to hold off on this patch until these issues
>> are resolved. Because we really do need to te
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 09:17, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> If I find the time maybe Ill submit something along these lines for
>> the next commit fest.
>>
>
> So i just picked up the non-inherited constraints patch and quickly
> ran into the same pro
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> If I find the time maybe Ill submit something along these lines for
> the next commit fest.
>
So i just picked up the non-inherited constraints patch and quickly
ran into the same problem and found this thread.
I think it makes sense to hold
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 09:50, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> My only thought is
>> perhaps we should add that missing unique index on (conrelid,
>> conname). If we are not going to support duplicate names in the code,
>> we might as well enforce it.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 07:53, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> The only way we could
>> trip up in that case is if there were two identically named
>> constraints. We'd have to visit the first tuple, update it, then
>> visit the second tuple, recurs
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 07:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> The only way we could
> trip up in that case is if there were two identically named
> constraints. We'd have to visit the first tuple, update it, then
> visit the second tuple, recurse (thus incrementing the command
> counter), and then visit th
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> Oh, I see the problem, and I now agree that it's the DROP CONSTRAINT
>> code that is buggy.
>
> Want me to roll this fix in as part of the alter table only constraint
> patch? Or keep it split out? We might want to backpatch to at least
> 8.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 07:24, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>>> tldr:
>>>
>>> Seems to be broken by
>>> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c102
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> tldr:
>>
>> Seems to be broken by
>> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
>> :
>> commit 4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> tldr:
>
> Seems to be broken by
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
> :
> commit 4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
> Author: Robert Haas
> Date: Mon Jun 27 10:27:17
tldr:
Seems to be broken by
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
:
commit 4da99ea4231e3d8bbf28b666748c1028e7b7d665
Author: Robert Haas
Date: Mon Jun 27 10:27:17 2011 -0400
Avoid having two copies of the HOT-chain search logi
11 matches
Mail list logo
