Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature

amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>

From: Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>

To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org>, Suraj Kharage <suraj.kharage@enterprisedb.com>

Date: 2025-02-28T04:57:58Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Add support for NOT ENFORCED in foreign key constraints
- eec0040c4bcd 18.0 landed
Expand test a bit
- 5d5f415816a6 18.0 landed
refactor: Pass relation OID instead of Relation to createForeignKeyCheckTriggers()
- ef7a5af77d44 18.0 landed
refactor: Split ATExecAlterConstraintInternal()
- 639238b978fe 18.0 landed
refactor: Move some code that updates pg_constraint to a separate function
- a3280e2a494f 18.0 landed
Move RemoveInheritedConstraint() call slightly earlier
- dabccf45139a 18.0 landed
refactor: Split tryAttachPartitionForeignKey()
- 1d26c2d2c4b8 18.0 landed
refactor: re-add ATExecAlterChildConstr()
- 64224a834ce4 18.0 landed
Add ATAlterConstraint struct for ALTER .. CONSTRAINT
- 80d7f990496b 18.0 landed
refactor: split ATExecAlterConstrRecurse()
- 7a947ed25b54 18.0 landed
Add support for NOT ENFORCED in CHECK constraints
- ca87c415e2fc 18.0 landed

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 4:48 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2025-Feb-27, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > Attached is the rebased patch set against the latest master head,
> > which also includes a *new* refactoring patch (0001). In this patch,
> > I’ve re-added ATExecAlterChildConstr(), which is required for the main
> > feature patch (0008) to handle recursion from different places while
> > altering enforceability.
>
> I think you refer to ATExecAlterConstrEnforceability, which claims
> (falsely) that it is a subroutine to ATExecAlterConstrRecurse; in
> reality it is called from ATExecAlterConstraintInternal or at least
> that's what I see in your 0008.  So I wonder if you haven't confused
> yourself here.  If nothing else, that comments needs fixed.  I didn't
> review these patches.
>

Yeah, that was intentional. I wanted to avoid recursion again by
hitting ATExecAlterChildConstr() at the end of
ATExecAlterConstraintInternal(). Also, I realized the value doesn’t
matter since recurse = false is explicitly set inside the
cmdcon->alterEnforceability condition. I wasn’t fully satisfied with
how we handled the recursion decision (code design), so I’ll give it
more thought. If I don’t find a better approach, I’ll add clearer
comments to explain the reasoning.

Regards,
Amul