On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Thanks for committing the code changes.
>
> About the documentation changes, it seems that the only places where any
> description of NOT VALID appears is ALTER TABLE, ALTER FOREIGN TABLE, and
> ALTER DOMAIN references pages. Even if the CREAT
On 2017/08/04 2:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this beha
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
>>> backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this behavior change [1].
>
>> I could go either way on
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached is a patch. I think this could be considered a bug-fix,
>> backpatchable to 9.6 which introduced this behavior change [1].
> I could go either way on that. It's not inconceivable somebody could
> be unhappy
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
>>> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that t
On 2017/08/02 20:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
>> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that the
>> remote table that the foreign table points to has som
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> If the user has specified "not valid" for a constraint on the foreign
> table, there is high chance that s/he is aware of the fact that the
> remote table that the foreign table points to has some rows which will
> violet the constraint. So,
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/08/01 17:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
wrote:
> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decide
On 2017/08/01 17:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
>>> wrote:
In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
declared NOT VALID valid if cr
On 1 August 2017 at 08:37, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
>>> declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
>>> constrai
On 2017/08/01 15:22, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote wrote:
>> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
>> declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
>> constraints on foreign tables should have been excluded from consi
On 1 August 2017 at 07:16, Amit Langote wrote:
> In f27a6b15e656 (9.6 & later), we decided to "Mark CHECK constraints
> declared NOT VALID valid if created with table." In retrospect,
> constraints on foreign tables should have been excluded from consideration
> in that commit, because the thinki
12 matches
Mail list logo
