Re: Mutable foreign key constraints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Mutable foreign key constraints
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwaqYvXTqc8JrY6bnm77zBMMYXZv3xE5Ef1bDr3nNsuvaQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Mutable foreign key constraints  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Mutable foreign key constraints
List pgsql-hackers
On Thursday, September 12, 2024, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

A possible objection is that if anybody has such a setup and
hasn't noticed a problem because they never change their
timezone setting, they might not appreciate us breaking it.
So I certainly wouldn't propose back-patching this.  But
maybe we should add it as a foot-gun defense going forward.

I’m disinclined to begin enforcing this.  If they got a volatile data type in a key column and don’t attempt to index the key, which would fail on the volatile side, I’d be mighty surprised.  I don’t really have much sympathy for anyone who got themselves into the described position but I don’t see this unsafe enough to force a potentially large table rewrite on those that managed to build a fragile but functioning model.

I suggest adding the commentary and queries used to check for just such a situation to the “don’t do this page” of the wiki and there just explain while allowed for backward compatibility it is definitely not a recommended setup.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Pgstattuple on Sequences: Seeking Community Feedback on Potential Patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Mutable foreign key constraints