public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
To: David Christensen <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: DELETE CASCADE
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 16:57:27 +0800
Message-ID: <20220112085727.rxzbe3u2ebidht5a@jrouhaud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAOxo6X+bsf85kycpoE5m2G57EFEGkCC72reNgg4Lna9Ud53-9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKFQuwZe6hr=rXMCPGVQ55gnSM_zAf7h6Dx_0n-LGJMB6izhoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 03:55:22PM -0500, David Christensen wrote:
> 
> I can see the argument for this in terms of being cautious/explicit about what gets removed, however
> the utility in this particular form was related to being able to *avoid* having to manually figure out
> the relationship chains and the specific constraints involved.  Might there be some sort of middle
> ground here?
> [...]
> > I think we could do something like extending the syntax to be
> >
> > 	SET CONSTRAINTS conname [ON tablename] [,...] new_properties
> 
> This part seems reasonable.  I need to look at how the existing SET CONSTRAINTS is implemented;
> would be interesting to see how the settings per-table/session are managed, as that would be
> illustrative to additional transient state like this.

The cfbot reports that this patch doesn't apply anymore:
http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_36_3195.log

> patching file src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 93 (offset 3 lines).
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 181.
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 556 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 581 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 755 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 776 (offset 5 lines).
> 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c.rej

Are you currently working on a possibly different approach and/or grammar?  If
not, could you send a rebased patch?  In the meantime I will switch the cf
entry to Waiting on Author.

view thread (2+ messages)

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: DELETE CASCADE
  In-Reply-To: <20220112085727.rxzbe3u2ebidht5a@jrouhaud>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox