On 3 June 2011 17:58, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of vie jun 03 12:47:58 -0400 2011:
>> On 2 June 2011 17:48, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> > Actually, it turns out that NOT VALID foreign keys were already buggy
>> > here, and fixing them automatically fixes this case as well, because the
>> > fix involves touching pg_get_constraintdef to dump the flag. This also
>> > gets it into psql's \d. Patch attached.
>> >
>> > (Maybe the changes in psql's describe.c should be reverted, not sure.)
>>
>> Nice work Alvaro :) Shouldn't patches be sent to -hackers instead of
>> the obsolete -patches list? Plus I'm a bit confused as to why the
>> patch looks like an email instead of a patch.
>
> Did I really email pgsql-patches? If so, I didn't notice -- but I don't
> see it (and the archives seem to agree with me, there's no email after
> 2008-10).
My bad, I was reading your patch which contained an email subject
beginning with [PATCH] (similar to mailing list subject prefixes)
which, if I had given it any further though, doesn't mean it's on the
-patches list.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
