I have a table with two columns with foreign key constraints, for example:
CREATE TABLE example
(
id integer PRIMARY KEY,
f1 integer REFERENCES example(id),
f2 integer REFERENCES example(id)
);
If I then perform the insert:
insert into example (id, f1, f2) values (1, 2, 2);
I will obviously get an error, but only for the first failed constraint:
ERROR: insert or update on table "example" violates foreign key constraint "example_f1_fkey"
DETAIL: Key (f1)=(2) is not present in table "example".
My question is: Is it possible to configure postgres so it returns an error with both of the failed key constraints?
Thanks very much,
Ben
Is it possible to configure postgres so it returns an error with both of the failed key constraints?
No, it isn't. The first FK failure aborts the transaction so no further checks are run.
It would be interesting to be able to capture all violations but there's no way to do that in current versions (true in 9.3, at least).
To do it you'd need to be able to selectively change ERROR level reports for CHECK constraints, foreign key constraint checks, etc into WARNINGs that also set a flag that'd force the transaction to abort at the end of the current statement. That might not be too hard to do technically, but it's certainly going to involve a chunk of work on the PostgreSQL source code.
Related
I am writing an idempotent schema change script for a Postgres 12 database. However I noticed that if I include the IF NOT EXISTS in an ADD COLUMN statement then even if the column already exists it is adding duplicate Indexes for the uniqueness constraint which already exists. Simple example:
-- set up base table
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS test_table
(id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY
);
-- statement intended to be idempotent
ALTER TABLE test_table
ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS name varchar(50) UNIQUE;
Running this script creates a new index test_table_name_key[n] each time it is run. I can't find anything in the Postgres documentation and don't understand why this is allowed to happen? If I break it into two parts eg:
ALTER TABLE test_table
ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS name varchar(50);
ALTER TABLE
ADD CONSTRAINT test_table_name_key UNIQUE (name);
Then the transaction fails because Postgres rejects the creation of a constraint which already exists (which I can then catch in a DO EXCEPTION block). As far as I can tell this is because doing it by this approach I am forced to give the constraint a name. This constrasts with the ALTER COLUMN SET NOT NULL which can be run multiple times without error or side effects as far as I can tell.
Question: why does it add a duplicate unique constraint and are there any problems with having multiple identical indexes on a table column? (I think this is a subtle 'error' and only spotted it by chance so am concerned it may arise in a production situation)
You can create multiple unique constraints on the same column as long as they have different names, simply because there is nothing in the PostgreSQL code that forbids that. Each unique constraint will create a unique index with the same name, because that is how unique constraints are implemented.
This can be a valid use case: for example, if the index is bloated, you could create a new constraint and then drop the old one.
But normally, it is useless and does harm, because each index will make data modifications on the table slower.
I'm trying to truncate a set of tables, but it keeps complaining about a foreign key.
but that foreign key is set to on delete Set null
to reproduce:
create table test_players (id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, name VARCHAR(255));
create table test_items (id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, name VARCHAR(255), player_id INTEGER FOREIGN KEY (player_id) REFERENCES test_players(id) ON DELETE SET NULL);
now if you truncate the test_players it will complain:
ERROR: cannot truncate a table referenced in a foreign key constraint
DETAIL: Table "test_items" references "test_players".
HINT: Truncate table "test_items" at the same time, or use TRUNCATE ... CASCADE.
SQL state: 0A000
what must I do to make me be able to delete test_players without deleting the test_items?
You cannot do what you are attempting. You will have to do this in 3 steps.
Update test_items and for each player_id. Well technically you don't need this, but if you don't give yourself data integrity issues.
Drop the test_items to test_players FK.
Then truncate test_players
The reason is that truncate basically just zaps the table, it does NOT process individual rows. Therefore it would not process the FK set null, it throws the error you got instead. In fact even if the child table is empty, or for that matter even if the parent is empty. See fiddle here. The fiddle also contains a function to do it, and a test for it.
The of course you could just Delete from test_players and let the triggers take care of updating test_items. Takes longer, esp if larger table, but you keep your FK. Of course there's
Recreate your FK.
To have an integer auto-numbering primary key on a table, you can use SERIAL
But I noticed the table information_schema.columns has a number of identity_ fields, and indeed, you could create a column with a GENERATED specifier...
What's the difference? Were they introduced with different PostgreSQL versions? Is one preferred over the other?
serial is the "old" implementation of auto-generated unique values that has been part of Postgres for ages. However that is not part of the SQL standard.
To be more compliant with the SQL standard, Postgres 10 introduced the syntax using generated as identity.
The underlying implementation is still based on a sequence, the definition now complies with the SQL standard. One thing that this new syntax allows is to prevent an accidental override of the value.
Consider the following tables:
create table t1 (id serial primary key);
create table t2 (id integer primary key generated always as identity);
Now when you run:
insert into t1 (id) values (1);
The underlying sequence and the values in the table are not in sync any more. If you run another
insert into t1 default_values;
You will get an error because the sequence was not advanced by the first insert, and now tries to insert the value 1 again.
With the second table however,
insert into t2 (id) values (1);
Results in:
ERROR: cannot insert into column "id"
Detail: Column "id" is an identity column defined as GENERATED ALWAYS.
So you can't accidentally "forget" the sequence usage. You can still force this, using the override system value option:
insert into t2 (id) overriding system value values (1);
which still leaves you with a sequence that is out-of-sync with the values in the table, but at least you were made aware of that.
identity columns also have another advantage: they also minimize the grants you need to give to a role in order to allow inserts.
While a table using a serial column requires the INSERT privilege on the table and the USAGE privilege on the underlying sequence this is not needed for tables using an identity columns. Granting the INSERT privilege is enough.
It is recommended to use the new identity syntax rather than serial
I have a column sort_order with a unique constraint on it.
The following SQL fails on Postgres 9.5:
UPDATE test
SET sort_order = sort_order + 1;
-- [23505] ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "test_sort_order_key"
-- Detail: Key (sort_order)=(2) already exists.
Clearly, if the sort_order values were unique before the update, they will still be unique after the update. Why is this?
The same statement works fine on Oracle and MS SQL, but also fails on MySQL and SQLite.
Here's the complete setup code for a SQL fiddle:
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test;
CREATE TABLE test (
val TEXT,
sort_order INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE
);
INSERT INTO test
VALUES ('A', 1), ('B', 2);
Postgres decides to check constraints of type IMMEDIATELY at a different time than proposed in the SQL standard.
Specifically, the documentation for SET CONSTRAINTS states (emphasis mine):
NOT NULL and CHECK constraints are always checked immediately when a row is inserted or modified (not at the end of the statement). Uniqueness and exclusion constraints that have not been declared DEFERRABLE are also checked immediately.
Postgres chooses to execute this query using a plan that results in a temporary collision for sort_order and IMMEDIATELY fails. Note that means that for the same schema and the same data, the same query may work or fail depending on the execution plan.
You'll have to make the constraint DEFERRABLE or DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED, which delays verification of the constraint until the end of the transaction or up to the point where a statement SET CONSTRAINTS ... IMMEDIATE is executed.
Addendum from #HansGinzel's comment:
for COPY, it seems, that (even IMMEDIATE) constraints are tested after all data are COPYied.
Let me start by saying that I’m a Linux/Unix admin. That being said my manager has tasked me with moving older PostgreSQL databases to a RedHat server running 8.4.20. I was successful moving a 7.2.1 db but I’m running into issues moving a 7.4.20 db.
I use pg_dump –c filename and psql < filename. For the problematic db everything runs until I get to a CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER statement. If I run it as it is in the file I get :
NOTICE: ignoring incomplete trigger group for constraint "" FOREIGN KEY data(ups) REFERENCES upsinfo(ups)
DETAIL: Found referenced table's DELETE trigger.
CREATE TRIGGER
If I run set schema 'pg_catalog'; I get:
ERROR: relation "upsinfo" does not exist
The tables (I think) involved are:
CREATE TABLE upsinfo (
ups text NOT NULL,
ipaddr inet,
rcomm text,
wcomm text,
reachable boolean,
managed boolean,
comments text,
region text
);
CREATE TABLE data (
date timestamp with time zone,
ups text,
mib text,
value text
);
The trigger problem trigger statement:
CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "<unnamed>"
AFTER DELETE ON upsinfo
FROM data
NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE "RI_FKey_cascade_del"('<unnamed>', 'data', 'upsinfo', 'UNSPECIFIED', 'ups', 'ups');
I know that the RI_FKey_cascade_del function is defined differently in the different versions of pg_catalog. Note that search_path is set to ‘public, pg_catalog’ so I’m also confused why I have to set the schema.
Again I’m not a real PostgreSQL DBA so try to be kind.
Oof, those are really old postgres versions, including the version you're upgrading to (8.4 was released in 2009, and support ended in 2014).
The short answer is that, as long as upsinfo and data are being created and populated, you're probably fine, and good to go. But one of your foreign key relationships is broken.
The long answer, well, let me see if I can explain what is going on (or, at least, what I think is going on).
I'm guessing that the original table definition of data included something like FOREIGN KEY (ups) REFERENCES upsinfo (ups) ON DELETE CASCADE. That causes postgres to automatically make some trigger constraints: 1- every time there's a new row for data, make sure that its ups column matches an existing row in upsinfo, and 2- every time you delete a row from upsinfo, delete the corresponding rows in data, based on the matching ups value.
That (not very informative) error message can come up when the foreign key relationship doesn't work. In order for a foreign key to make sense, the referenced value needs to be unique -- there should be only one row in upsinfo for each distinct value of ups. In order for postgres to know that, there needs to be a unique index or primary key on upsinfo.ups.
In this case, one of a couple things could be breaking it:
There's no primary key or unique index on upsinfo.ups (postgres should not have allowed a foreign key, but may have in very old versions)
There used to be a unique index, but it hadn't properly enforced uniqueness, so it didn't get successfully imported (a bug, again likely from a very old version)
In either case, if that foreign key relationship is important, you can try to fix it once the import is complete. Start by trying to make a unique index on upsinfo.ups, and see if you have problems. If you do, resolve the duplicate entries, and try again till it works. Then issue something like:
ALTER TABLE data
ADD FOREIGN KEY (ups) REFERENCES upsinfo (ups) ON DELETE CASCADE;
Of course, if things are working, it's possible you don't need to fix the foreign key, in which case you're probably able to ignore those errors and just move forward.
Hope that helps, and good luck!
This seems to be a part of ON DELETE CONSTRAINT. If I were you I would delete all such statements and replace them with a proper constraint definition on the target table.
Table definition should then look like this:
CREATE TABLE bookings (
boo_id serial NOT NULL,
boo_hotelid character varying NOT NULL,
boo_roomid integer NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT pk_bookings
PRIMARY KEY (boo_id),
CONSTRAINT fk_bookings_boo_roomid
FOREIGN KEY (boo_roomid)
REFERENCES rooms (roo_id) MATCH SIMPLE
ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE
) WITHOUT OIDS;
And this part is what will internally create the trigger:
CONSTRAINT fk_bookings_boo_roomid
FOREIGN KEY (boo_roomid)
REFERENCES rooms (roo_id) MATCH SIMPLE
ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE
But, to be honest, I do not have an understanding for an upgrade to an unsupported version. You know the Postgres is version 9.5 now, right?