Horton

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

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
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: 2011-01-23T19:45:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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.

			regards, tom lane