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: 2025-02-18T05:02:26Z

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 Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:47 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2025-Feb-17, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > I have renamed AlterConstraintStmt to ATAlterConstraint as per your
> > suggestion in the attached version. Apart from this, there are no
> > other changes, as the final behavior is still unclear based on the
> > discussions so far.
>
> Okay, thanks.  I've taken your alterDeferrability from your later patch
> (renamed to just "deferrability").  Also, IMO the routine structure
> needs a bit of a revamp.  What do you think of the attached, which is
> mostly your 0001?  (Actually, now that I look, it seems I made more or
> less the same changes you'd be doing in 0008, so this should be okay.)
>

The patch looks quite reasonable, but I’m concerned that renaming
ATExecAlterConstrRecurse() and ATExecAlterChildConstr() exclusively
for deferrability might require the enforceability patch to duplicate
these functions, even though some operations (e.g., pg_constraint
updates and recursion on child constraints) could have been reused.

Regards,
Amul