Add PERIOD clause to foreign key constraint definitions. This is
supported for range and multirange types. Temporal foreign keys check
for range containment instead of equality.
This feature matches the behavior of the SQL standard temporal foreign
keys, but it works on PostgreSQL's native ranges instead of SQL's
"periods", which don't exist in PostgreSQL (yet).
Reference actions ON {UPDATE,DELETE} {CASCADE,SET NULL,SET DEFAULT}
are not supported yet.
(previously committed as 34768ee3616, reverted by 8aee330af55; this is
essentially unchanged from those)
Author: Paul A. Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Reviewed-by: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com
Add WITHOUT OVERLAPS clause to PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints.
These are backed by GiST indexes instead of B-tree indexes, since they
are essentially exclusion constraints with = for the scalar parts of
the key and && for the temporal part.
(previously committed as 46a0cd4cefb, reverted by 46a0cd4cefb; the new
part is this:)
Because 'empty' && 'empty' is false, the temporal PK/UQ constraint
allowed duplicates, which is confusing to users and breaks internal
expectations. For instance, when GROUP BY checks functional
dependencies on the PK, it allows selecting other columns from the
table, but in the presence of duplicate keys you could get the value
from any of their rows. So we need to forbid empties.
This all means that at the moment we can only support ranges and
multiranges for temporal PK/UQs, unlike the original patch (above).
Documentation and tests for this are added. But this could
conceivably be extended by introducing some more general support for
the notion of "empty" for other types.
Author: Paul A. Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Reviewed-by: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com
This feature set did not handle empty ranges correctly, and it's now
too late for PostgreSQL 17 to fix it.
The following commits are reverted:
6db4598fcb8 Add stratnum GiST support function
46a0cd4cefb Add temporal PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints
86232a49a43 Fix comment on gist_stratnum_btree
030e10ff1a3 Rename pg_constraint.conwithoutoverlaps to conperiod
a88c800deb6 Use daterange and YMD in without_overlaps tests instead of tsrange.
5577a71fb0c Use half-open interval notation in without_overlaps tests
34768ee3616 Add temporal FOREIGN KEY contraints
482e108cd38 Add test for REPLICA IDENTITY with a temporal key
c3db1f30cba doc: clarify PERIOD and WITHOUT OVERLAPS in CREATE TABLE
144c2ce0cc7 Fix ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE for temporal indexes
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d0b64a7a-dfe4-4b84-a906-c7dedfa40a3e@eisentraut.org
A PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE constraint with WITHOUT OVERLAPS will be a
GiST index, not a B-Tree, but it will still have indisunique set. The
code for ON CONFLICT fails if it sees a non-btree index that has
indisunique. This commit fixes that and adds some tests. But now
that we can't just test indisunique, we also need some extra checks to
prevent DO UPDATE from running against a WITHOUT OVERLAPS constraint
(because the conflict could happen against more than one row, and we'd
only update one).
Author: Paul A. Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1426589a-83cb-4a89-bf40-713970c07e63@illuminatedcomputing.com
Add PERIOD clause to foreign key constraint definitions. This is
supported for range and multirange types. Temporal foreign keys check
for range containment instead of equality.
This feature matches the behavior of the SQL standard temporal foreign
keys, but it works on PostgreSQL's native ranges instead of SQL's
"periods", which don't exist in PostgreSQL (yet).
Reference actions ON {UPDATE,DELETE} {CASCADE,SET NULL,SET DEFAULT}
are not supported yet.
Author: Paul A. Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Reviewed-by: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com
