From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3D2343D67A for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:47:35 +0300 (MSK) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:47:34 +0300 From: Nikita Pettik Message-ID: <20191015214734.GC898@tarantool.org> References: <8232b0466f3878280a9ad35cb08f437610a36486.1570539526.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> <20191014164910.GA30792@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] box: add an ability to disable CK constraints List-Id: Tarantool development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kirill Shcherbatov Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org On 15 Oct 14:13, Kirill Shcherbatov wrote: > > -> when processed data is verified and constraints validation > > is not required. For instance, during casual recovery process there's > > no need to provide any checks since data is assumed to be consistent. > Applied. > > > Also explain why we have to store this option. > > To be honest, I doubt that 'is_enable' option should be persisted.. > > At least, we can assume that it is always 'on' by default, so that > > save user from having to specify this option each time. > > Verbally discussed. To implement a behavior that Oracle users are familiar with. > It was a Kostya's point of view and it is already implemented. Verbally I said that 'somebody told me to do so' is a quite weak argument. So we either add fine rationale for this feature or remove it. Since it was not my suggestion I can't say why do we need it.