Horton

Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature

Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Amul Sul <sulamul@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: 2025-02-14T15:15:07Z
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 →

  1. Add support for NOT ENFORCED in foreign key constraints

  2. Expand test a bit

  3. refactor: Pass relation OID instead of Relation to createForeignKeyCheckTriggers()

  4. refactor: Split ATExecAlterConstraintInternal()

  5. refactor: Move some code that updates pg_constraint to a separate function

  6. Move RemoveInheritedConstraint() call slightly earlier

  7. refactor: Split tryAttachPartitionForeignKey()

  8. refactor: re-add ATExecAlterChildConstr()

  9. Add ATAlterConstraint struct for ALTER .. CONSTRAINT

  10. refactor: split ATExecAlterConstrRecurse()

  11. Add support for NOT ENFORCED in CHECK constraints

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 10:11, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
wrote:


> > > I think, what you intend to say is clearer with 4 state system {NE, E}
> > > * {NV, V} = {(NE, NV), (NE, V), (E, NV), (E, V)} where (NE, V) is
> > > unreachable. Let's name them S1, S2, S3, S4 respectively.
> > [...]
> > > Notice that there are no edges to and from S2.
> >
> > So why list it as a possible state?
>
> For the sake of combinatorics. :)
>

Just because there are 2^n combinations of n boolean values does not mean
there are 2^n actual meaningful states. That's why we have CHECK
constraints.