Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpReanN1CwL6=7DCEbheyHt2Z+sScORwwoeys1ik5SCdVMA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT  (Matheus de Oliveira <matioli.matheus@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:49 PM, Matheus de Oliveira
<matioli.matheus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Em 3 de mar de 2018 19:32, "Peter Eisentraut"
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> escreveu:
>
> On 2/20/18 10:10, Matheus de Oliveira wrote:
>> Besides that, there is a another change in this patch on current ALTER
>> CONSTRAINT about deferrability options. Previously, if the user did
>> ALTER CONSTRAINT without specifying an option on deferrable or
>> initdeferred, it was implied the default options, so this:
>>
>>     ALTER TABLE tbl
>>     ALTER CONSTRAINT con_name;
>>
>> Was equivalent to:
>>
>>     ALTER TABLE tbl
>>     ALTER CONSTRAINT con_name NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE;
>
> Oh, that seems wrong.  Probably, it shouldn't even accept that syntax
> with an empty options list, let alone reset options that are not
> mentioned.
>
>
> Yeah, it felt really weird when I noticed it. And I just noticed while
> reading the source.
>
> Can
>
> you prepare a separate patch for this issue?
>
>
> I can do that, no problem. It'll take awhile though, I'm on a trip and will
> be home around March 20th.

Matheus,
When do you think you can provide the patch for bug fix?

Also, the patch you originally posted doesn't apply cleanly. Can you
please post a rebased version?

The patch contains 70 odd lines of  test SQL and 3600 odd lines of
output. The total patch is 4200 odd lines. I don't think that it will
be acceptable to add that huge an output to the regression test. You
will need to provide a patch with much smaller output addition and may
be a smaller test as well.

>
> You think this should be applied to all versions that support ALTER
> CONSTRAINT, right?

I think so.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aditya Toshniwal
Date:
Subject: Re: [PG-11] Potential bug related to INCLUDE clause of CREATE INDEX
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Test for trigger condition accessing system attributes