Re: possible constraint bug? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: possible constraint bug?
Date
Msg-id 200010121924.PAA13798@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: possible constraint bug?  (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>)
Responses Re: possible constraint bug?
List pgsql-hackers
Is this addressed in 7.1?

> 
> This is particular to postgres, although the 
> SQL behavior would have either dropped 
> the constraint or prevented the drop in the
> first place.
> 
> There's been some talk of an ALTER FUNCTION
> that would let you change the code behind
> a function without a drop/create.
> 
> Generally you have to re-generate things that
> reference functions that have been dropped
> and re-created.  This is a pain right now
> for constraints, since it requires a dump
> and restore of the table.
> 
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Thomas Swan wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Using Postgresql 7.0.2 (Linux x86, 2.2.16)
> > 
> > CERATE FUNCTION foo(text)
> > 
> > CREATE TABLE bar(
> >          fud TEXT CHECK (foo(fud))
> > );
> > 
> > DROP FUNCTION foo(TEXT);
> > CREATE FUNCTION foo( .....);
> > 
> > INSERT INTO bar VALUES ('Hey'); results in the following error
> > 
> > ERROR init_fcache: Cache lookup failed for procedure 128384
> > 
> > Is this particular to postgres or is this a normal SQLxx standard behavior?
> 
> 


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump possible fix, need testers. (was: Re: pg_dump disaster)
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [patch,rfc] binary operators on integers