Re: should I worry? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | ohp@pyrenet.fr |
---|---|
Subject | Re: should I worry? |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.UW2.4.53.0711032238520.3178@sun.pyrenet Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: should I worry? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Responses |
Re: should I worry?
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:42:24 -0400 > From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > To: ohp@pyrenet.fr > Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>, > pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] should I worry? > > ohp@pyrenet.fr writes: > > I'm confused, until I have clearence to send the schema, here are pg logs: > > > Nov 3 14:44:20 sun postgres[17963]: [189-1] ERROR: trigger "<unnamed>" for relation "objets" already exists > > Nov 3 14:44:20 sun postgres[17963]: [189-2] STATEMENT: CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "<unnamed>" > > Nov 3 14:44:20 sun postgres[17963]: [189-3] AFTER UPDATE ON objets > > Nov 3 14:44:20 sun postgres[17963]: [189-4] FROM objet_position > > Nov 3 14:44:20 sun postgres[17963]: [189-5] NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE > > Nov 3 14:44:20 sun postgres[17963]: [189-6] FOR EACH ROW > > Nov 3 14:44:20 sun postgres[17963]: [189-7] EXECUTE PROCEDURE "RI_FKey_noaction_upd"('<unnamed>', 'objet_position','objets', 'UNSPECIFIED', 'pobj_obj_cod', > > Nov 3 14:44:20 sun postgres[17963]: [189-8] 'obj_cod'); > > These must be hangovers from some truly ancient version of Postgres :-( Yes, this db is restored on every new version for nearly 5 years now :) > > I'd suggest dropping all these triggers and setting up real foreign key > constraint declarations instead. If there seem to be too many to do it > manually, you might try contrib/adddepend which used to be included > with Postgres (between 7.3 and 8.1). Done see below > Actually, I can't even edit the dump 'cause it's 3.5G uncompress, xemacs gives up at 2G :-( > Looking into it, I think the reason you're getting bit now is that > CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER didn't use to insist on a unique trigger name. > Now it does. But it's way past time for you to get rid of these > old-style foreign keys anyway. I've reload the dump on a 8.2.5 then ran adddepend.pl, took a dump and reloaded it on a 8.3beta2, and have less but still errors. What do I loose if I leave it as is, I guess I'll miss a few foreign keys, is there an easy way to know which? Is there a query I can use to know all the unamed trigger, delete them and recreate with the right sentence? > > regards, tom lane > regards, -- Olivier PRENANT Tel: +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work) 15, Chemin des Monges +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax) 31190 AUTERIVE +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM) FRANCE Email: ohp@pyrenet.fr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)
pgsql-hackers by date: