Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of sáb jun 18 23:53:17 -0400 2011:
> I agree. That's pretty contorted. How about something like this:
>
Thanks Jaime and Robert. I have pushed this patch with these fixes.
--
Álvaro Herrera
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replica
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> looks good to me... at least it compiles, and function as i would expect...
>> tomorrow i will read the code more carefully and look at the docs, but
>> probably this is just fine to be commited...
>
> I think that this paragraph is confusi
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, nothing serious. Updated patch attached. The wording in the doc
>> changes could probably use some look over.
>>
>
> looks good to me... at least it compiles, and functi
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Yeah, nothing serious. Updated patch attached. The wording in the doc
> changes could probably use some look over.
>
looks good to me... at least it compiles, and function as i would expect...
tomorrow i will read the code more carefull
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Here's an updated patch fixing all of the above. I stole your first
> test case and added it to regression, after some editorialization.
I've probably created some merge conflicts for you in process of fixing
the FOREIGN KEY NOT VALID patch, but in any case you need to c
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié jun 15 14:49:04 -0400 2011:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 15 12:53:59 -0400 2011:
> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hmm, I think this means we need to send a sinval message
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 15 12:53:59 -0400 2011:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm, I think this means we need to send a sinval message to invalidate
>>> cached plans when a constraint is validated. I'll see abou
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 15 12:53:59 -0400 2011:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Hmm, I think this means we need to send a sinval message to invalidate
> > cached plans when a constraint is validated. I'll see about this.
>
> I feel like that
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Hmm, I think this means we need to send a sinval message to invalidate
> cached plans when a constraint is validated. I'll see about this.
I feel like that really ought to be happening automatically, as a
result of committing the transact
Excerpts from Jaime Casanova's message of mié jun 15 02:09:15 -0400 2011:
> psql \h says (among other things) for ALTER TABLE
> """
>ADD table_constraint
>ADD table_constraint_using_index
>ADD table_constraint [ NOT VALID ]
> """
>
> ADD table_constraint appears twice and isn't true t
On 15 June 2011 07:09, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
>>> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
>>
>>> > I think that you also need to u
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
>> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
>
>> > I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
>> > (get_relation
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
>>> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
>>
>>> > I think that you also
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
>> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
>
>> > I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
>> > (get_relation
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 13 18:08:12 -0400 2011:
> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
> > I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
> > (get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
> > exc
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun jun 13 18:11:54 -0400 2011:
>> Alvaro, Dean,
>>
>> >> I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
>> >> > (get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun jun 13 18:11:54 -0400 2011:
> Alvaro, Dean,
>
> >> I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
> >> > (get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
> >> > exclude a relation on the basis of a CHECK constraint
On 14/06/2011 01:11, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hmmm. Is this the behavior we want with NOT VALID constraints though?
I know that if I'm pouring 100m rows into a new partition as part of a
repartitioning scheme, I don't want to *ever* check them if I know
they're correct because of how I created the tab
> I can see why you would want that, but I'd say that's a separate feature
> you need to explicitly request when creating the constraint. Consider
> what happens in the "old data is garbage, but I want the new data to be
> validated" use case if we allow constraint exclusion on NOT VALID
> constr
Alvaro, Dean,
>> I think that you also need to update the constraint exclusion code
>> > (get_relation_constraints() or nearby), otherwise the planner might
>> > exclude a relation on the basis of a CHECK constraint that is not
>> > currently VALID.
> Ouch, yeah, thanks for pointing that out. Fo
Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 11 09:32:15 -0400 2011:
> On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
> > simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
> >
> > Enable CHECK constraints to be
On 11 June 2011 16:40, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 11 June 2011 14:40, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>> On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
simple regression tests for the
On 11 June 2011 14:40, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
>>> simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
>>>
>>> Enable CHECK
On 11 June 2011 14:32, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
>> simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
>>
>> Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID
>>
>> This
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
> simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
>
> Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID
>
> This means that they can initially be added to a large ex
Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of sáb jun 04 09:11:52 -0400 2011:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Actually, it turns out that NOT VALID foreign keys were already buggy
> > here, and fixing them automatically fixes this case as well, because the
> > fix involves
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mié jun 01 20:56:12 -0400 2011:
>> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié jun 01 19:48:44 -0400 2011:
>>
>> > Is this expected?
>> > [ pg_dump fails to preserve not-valid status of constraints ]
>>
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 13:45:57 -0400 2011:
> On 3 June 2011 17:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 12:47:58 -0400 2011:
> >> Nice work Alvaro :) Shouldn't patches be sent to -hackers instead of
> >> the obsolete -patches list?
On 3 June 2011 17:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 12:47:58 -0400 2011:
>> On 2 June 2011 17:48, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> > Actually, it turns out that NOT VALID foreign keys were already buggy
>> > here, and fixing them automatically fixes this case
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 12:47:58 -0400 2011:
> On 2 June 2011 17:48, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Actually, it turns out that NOT VALID foreign keys were already buggy
> > here, and fixing them automatically fixes this case as well, because the
> > fix involves touching pg_g
On 2 June 2011 17:48, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mié jun 01 20:56:12 -0400 2011:
>> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié jun 01 19:48:44 -0400 2011:
>>
>> > Is this expected?
>> > [ pg_dump fails to preserve not-valid status of constraints ]
>>
>> Certai
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mié jun 01 20:56:12 -0400 2011:
> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié jun 01 19:48:44 -0400 2011:
>
> > Is this expected?
> > [ pg_dump fails to preserve not-valid status of constraints ]
>
> Certainly not.
>
> > Shouldn't the constraint be dumped
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié jun 01 19:48:44 -0400 2011:
> Is this expected?
> [ pg_dump fails to preserve not-valid status of constraints ]
Certainly not.
> Shouldn't the constraint be dumped as not valid too??
Sure, I'll implement that tomorrow.
--
Álvaro Herrera
The PostgreSQ
On 1 June 2011 23:47, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Here's a complete patch with all this stuff, plus doc additions and
> simple regression tests for the new ALTER DOMAIN commands.
>
> Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID
>
> This means that they can initially be added to a large ex
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mar may 31 20:18:18 -0400 2011:
> test=# CREATE DOMAIN things AS INT CHECK (VALUE > 5);
> CREATE DOMAIN
> test=# CREATE TABLE abc (id SERIAL, stuff things);
> NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "abc_id_seq" for
> serial column "abc.id"
> CREAT
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of mar may 31 21:42:08 -0400 2011:
> A colleague brought up an interesting idea that I think is worth
> exploring for all NOT VALID constraints, to wit, is there some way
> (via SQL) to find which rows violate which constraints? I'm picturing
> some kind of fu
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:04:07PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
> VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys. That is, you
> create the constraint without scanning the table and after it is
> committed, it is enfo
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mar may 31 20:18:18 -0400 2011:
> On 31 May 2011 18:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Here it is -- as a context patch this time, as well.
> There is this scenario:
>
> test=# CREATE DOMAIN things AS INT CHECK (VALUE > 5);
> CREATE DOMAIN
> test=# CREATE TAB
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Ross J. Reedstrom's message of mar may 31 14:02:04 -0400 2011:
>>
>>> Follows from one of the practical maxims of databases: "The data is
>>> always dirty" Being able to
On 31 May 2011 18:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Here it is -- as a context patch this time, as well.
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
There is this scenario:
test=# CREATE DOMAIN things
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Ross J. Reedstrom's message of mar may 31 14:02:04 -0400 2011:
>
>> Follows from one of the practical maxims of databases: "The data is
>> always dirty" Being able to have the constraints enforced at least for
>> new data allow
Excerpts from Ross J. Reedstrom's message of mar may 31 14:02:04 -0400 2011:
> Follows from one of the practical maxims of databases: "The data is
> always dirty" Being able to have the constraints enforced at least for
> new data allows you to at least fence the bad data, and have a shot at
> fix
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:35:01AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as
> > NOT VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys.
> > That is, you create the constraint without scanning the table and
Here it is -- as a context patch this time, as well.
--
Álvaro Herrera
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
0001-Enable-CHECK-constraints-to-be-declared-NOT-VALID.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-h
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as
> NOT VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys.
> That is, you create the constraint without scanning the table and
< after it is committed, it is enforced for new rows; later, all
> rows ar
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
> VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys. That is, you
> create the constraint without scanning the table and after it is
> committed, it is enforced fo
Excerpts from Jaime Casanova's message of mar may 31 12:24:09 -0400 2011:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
> > VALID
>
> seems you forgot to add the patch itself
oops ... another bug in my email c
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mar may 31 12:39:48 -0400 2011:
> Excerpts from Jaime Casanova's message of mar may 31 12:24:09 -0400 2011:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > > This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
> > > VAL
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
> VALID
seems you forgot to add the patch itself
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
--
Sent v
This patch allows you to initially declare a CHECK constraint as NOT
VALID, similar to what we already allow for foreign keys. That is, you
create the constraint without scanning the table and after it is
committed, it is enforced for new rows; later, all rows are checked by
running ALTER TABLE VA
50 matches
Mail list logo
