Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED
Date
Msg-id 1638.1295811906@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 20:33 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> \d table now only shows that there's a FOREIGN KEY, which might lead the 
>> user to think that there should not be any values that don't exist in 
>> the referenced table.

> Neither \d nor \di shows invalid indexes.

Even if that were true, it's a poor analogy, since a disabled foreign
key has visible *semantic* impact, whereas a disabled index doesn't.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED