Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 09:32:39 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: "Chao Li" <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
 "jian he" <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: "L. pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>
Message-Id: <cb4a41fd-67e8-47ed-bcff-d0549dce3f02@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DCE683F9-CEBF-4EDE-81D1-5E59CCD5CF82@gmail.com>
References: <E74C57FA-1DD0-4C8E-8FB1-538034752592@gmail.com>
 <CACJufxGRkCSqqRwd+3MMVFbosKXHv=Jc+KyGK+NM3YAHN7eu+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <DCE683F9-CEBF-4EDE-81D1-5E59CCD5CF82@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fix bug of CHECK constraint enforceability recursion
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cb4a41fd-67e8-47ed-bcff-d0549dce3f02%40app.fastmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-05-26, Chao Li wrote:
>> On May 26, 2026, at 14:05, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrot=
e:

>> Overall, i tend to think that we should reject ALTER TABLE ALTER
>> CONSTRAINT if it
>> would result in the parent constraint being enforced while the child =
constraint
>> is not enforced.

Yeah.

> I am not against the idea of "rejecting ALTER TABLE ALTER CONSTRAINT i=
f=20
> it would result in the parent constraint being enforced while the chil=
d=20
> constrain is not enforced", but I=E2=80=99m afraid it=E2=80=99s too la=
te for PG19. So,=20
> I guess we still need to fix the issue for 19, right?

I think this is a bug that we need to fix in 19 as well =E2=80=94 I mean=
 we should reject the ALTER TABLE.

--=20
=C3=81lvaro Herrera