Re: altering a column's collation leaves an invalid foreign key
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-11-07T12:15:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 25.10.24 08:23, jian he wrote:
> ri_KeysEqual definitely deserves some comments.
> for rel_is_pk, the equality is collation agnostic;
> for rel_is_pk is false, the equality is collation aware.
>
> for example:
> DROP TABLE IF EXISTS fktable, pktable;
> CREATE TABLE pktable (x text COLLATE case_insensitive PRIMARY KEY);
> CREATE TABLE fktable (x text collate case_insensitive REFERENCES
> pktable on update restrict on delete restrict);
> INSERT INTO pktable VALUES ('A'), ('Å');
> INSERT INTO fktable VALUES ('a');
> update pktable set x = 'a' where x = 'A';
> ERROR: update or delete on table "pktable" violates foreign key
> constraint "fktable_x_fkey" on table "fktable"
> DETAIL: Key (x)=(A) is still referenced from table "fktable".
> this should not happen?
Apparently this is intentional. It's the difference between RESTRICT
and NO ACTION. In ri_restrict(), there is a comment:
/*
* If another PK row now exists providing the old key values, we should
* not do anything. However, this check should only be made in the NO
* ACTION case; in RESTRICT cases we don't wish to allow another
row to be
* substituted.
*/
In any case, this patch does not change this behavior. It exists in old
versions as well.
Commits
-
Fix error code for referential action RESTRICT
- 086c84b23d99 18.0 landed
-
doc: Improve description of referential actions
- 1e08905842fb 18.0 landed
-
Add tests for foreign keys with case-insensitive collations
- 4a2dbfc6be45 18.0 landed
-
Fix collation handling for foreign keys
- 9321d2fdf808 18.0 landed
-
Clarify a foreign key error message
- d7a2b5bd8718 18.0 landed