On 2013-10-10 02:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> I agree with these concerns, as well as those raised by Tom Lane and
> Fabien COELHO, and I think they indicate that we shouldn't accept
> this
> patch. So I'm marking this as Rejected.
On 2013-10-11 06:48, Jim Nasby wrote:
>I see a use case for disabling FKs and CHECKS but not PKs or UNIQUE
> constraints: FKs and CHECKS don't depend on additional state
> information (namely an index), so >it's easy to just disable them
> temporarily and then re-enable them. The same isn't true about a PK or
> UNIQUE constraint.
>
>Of course we could decide to do something more complex to handle
> disabling PK/UNIQUE... though at that point it'd be better to just
> allow temporarily disabling >any index. But I think there's an argument
> to be made for that being beyond the scope of disabling "simple"
> constraints... it's a pretty high bar to set that we ?>won't accept a
> patch that disables simple constraints but not those involving indexes.
Thanks for your reply.
I found my patch's weakness.I think the DISABLE/ENABLE patch is
necessary.
I will pack a new patch for all the constraints to commit.
Thanks again.
Yours, Wang Shuo HighGo Software Co.,Ltd. October 11, 2013
