Re: pg_dump: Sorted output, referential integrity - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephan Szabo
Subject Re: pg_dump: Sorted output, referential integrity
Date
Msg-id 20011211101646.M79645-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump: Sorted output, referential integrity  (Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Jan Wieck wrote:

> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Philip Warner wrote:
> >
> > > At 13:34 7/12/01 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Well, the biggest thing I see on using alter table add constraint for
> > > >foreign keys is the expense involved if you do it after the tables are
> > > >populated.
> > >
> > > Is it really worse than loading the tables with the constraint in place?
> >
> > I'd say its better than while loading, but currently the check isn't
> > performed at all I think, because the create constraint trigger
> > statements are after data load and they don't check the data at all.
> > At least that's how I remember it, I could be wrong.
>
>     You're  not.  This  discussion came up a couple of times, and
>     the answer is allways the same.
>
>     We don't want to define  the  constraints  with  ALTER  TABLE
>     because this means checking data on restore that doesn't need
>     to be checked at all (in theory).  If he has  a  crash  of  a
>     critical system and restores from a dump, I bet the farm that
>     he wants it FAST.

I'd say as an optional parameter to dump, it's definately not a bad idea
(like the idea of a --sql or whatever) since the user has to explicitly
ask for it. I think for the rest of the cases it comes down to what people
want it to do.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Restoring large tables with COPY
Next
From: "Serguei Mokhov"
Date:
Subject: Re: Restoring large tables with COPY