Horton

Re: SQL:2011 application time

Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>

View thread
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-01-23T15:40:32Z
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. Rename gist stratnum support function

  2. Remove support for temporal RESTRICT foreign keys

  3. Cache NO ACTION foreign keys separately from RESTRICT foreign keys

  4. Fix NO ACTION temporal foreign keys when the referenced endpoints change

  5. Improve whitespace in without_overlaps test

  6. Tests for logical replication with temporal keys

  7. Support for GiST in get_equal_strategy_number()

  8. Make the conditions in IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull() more explicit

  9. Replace get_equal_strategy_number_for_am() by get_equal_strategy_number()

  10. Improve internal logical replication error for missing equality strategy

  11. Simplify IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull()

  12. Fix ALTER TABLE / REPLICA IDENTITY for temporal tables

  13. doc: Update pg_constraint.conexclop docs for WITHOUT OVERLAPS

  14. doc: Add PERIOD to ALTER TABLE reference docs

  15. doc: Add WITHOUT OVERLAPS to ALTER TABLE reference docs

  16. Add temporal FOREIGN KEY contraints

  17. Add temporal PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints

  18. Add stratnum GiST support function

  19. Avoid crashing when a JIT-inlined backend function throws an error.

  20. Revert temporal primary keys and foreign keys

  21. Fix ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE for temporal indexes

  22. Add test for REPLICA IDENTITY with a temporal key

  23. Use half-open interval notation in without_overlaps tests

  24. Use daterange and YMD in without_overlaps tests instead of tsrange.

  25. Rename pg_constraint.conwithoutoverlaps to conperiod

  26. Fix comment on gist_stratnum_btree

  27. Add missing TAP test name

  28. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  29. Rename functions to avoid future conflicts

On 21.01.25 19:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12.01.25 00:19, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
>> On 1/4/25 13:39, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
>>> These updates fix a problem in the unaccent contrib module. When I 
>>> added a new parameter to get_func_namespace, I changed a call there. 
>>> Then I when took out that parameter, I didn't update the extension 
>>> again. Otherwise these are the same as the v46 patches.
>>
>> Hi Hackers,
>>
>> Here is another set of commits. Based on discussion on the thread 
>> about Index AM API Cleanup [1], I decided that I should just always 
>> make FOR PORTION OF infer its intersect proc from whatever intersect 
>> op is used by temporal foreign keys (even though we don't have a way 
>> to get an intersect op for non-range/multirange types yet). This means 
>> we need one less GiST support proc, which seems like a nice improvement.
>>
>> I also fixed the RESTRICT commit where a change previously was 
>> included in a later commit that should have been included there.
>>
>> Rebased to 29dfffae0a, fixing a merge conflict + crash with the NOT 
>> ENFORCED commit.
> 
> I have committed the fix for foreign key NO ACTION (patch 0002, this did 
> not require patch 0001).  I will study the proposed fix for RESTRICT 
> (patches 0001 and 0003) next.

I think my interpretation of what RESTRICT should do is different.

The clause "Execution of referential actions" in the SQL standard only 
talks about referenced and referencing columns, not periods.  So this 
would mean you can change the period columns all you want (as long as 
they maintain referential integrity).  So it would be like the NO ACTION 
case.  But you can't change any of the non-period columns on the primary 
key if they are referenced by any referencing columns, even if the 
respective periods are disjoint.

Maybe this makes sense, or maybe this is a mistake (neglected to update 
this part when periods were introduced?).  But in any case, I can't get 
from this to what the patch does.  When I apply the tests in the patch 
without the code changes, what I would intuitively like are more errors 
than the starting state, but your patch results in fewer errors.

If we're not sure, we can also disable RESTRICT for now.  We have to get 
NO ACTION right first anyway, given the other messages in this thread.