Horton

Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>, Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-01-23T20:31:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 14:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 20:33 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> >> \d table now only shows that there's a FOREIGN KEY, which might lead the 
> >> user to think that there should not be any values that don't exist in 
> >> the referenced table.
> 
> > Neither \d nor \di shows invalid indexes.
> 
> Even if that were true, it's a poor analogy, since a disabled foreign
> key has visible *semantic* impact, whereas a disabled index doesn't.

Sure. My agreement to add something appears to have crossed with your
comments.

I'd appreciate you reviewing the parser aspects of the patch. $TITLE no
longer reflects the syntax.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services