Opened 22 months ago
Last modified 8 months ago
#34417 assigned Cleanup/optimization
AlterField migration on ForeignKey field re-creates foreign key constraints unnecessarily
Reported by: | Ömer Faruk Abacı | Owned by: | Bhuvnesh |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Migrations | Version: | 4.1 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Accepted | |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | yes |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
Let's assume that we have the following models:
class Bar(models.Model): pass class Foo(models.Model): bar = models.ForeignKey(Bar, related_name="foos", on_delete=models.CASCADE)
The migration that creates these models will add an index to the bar
field of Foo
model, this is well-documented and there is no problem up until now. But when we do the following change to drop the index on the ForeignKey field:
class Foo(models.Model): bar = models.ForeignKey(..., db_index=False)
Then we have a migration that results in the following SQL statement:
BEGIN; -- -- Alter field bar on foo -- SET CONSTRAINTS "foos_foo_bar_id_efb062ad_fk_foos_bar_id" IMMEDIATE; ALTER TABLE "foos_foo" DROP CONSTRAINT "foos_foo_bar_id_efb062ad_fk_foos_bar_id"; DROP INDEX IF EXISTS "foos_foo_bar_id_efb062ad"; ALTER TABLE "foos_foo" ADD CONSTRAINT "foos_foo_bar_id_efb062ad_fk_foos_bar_id" FOREIGN KEY ("bar_id") REFERENCES "bars_bar" ("id") DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED; COMMIT;
I believe that we shouldn't be needing to re-create the FK constraint, so the following SQL should suffice:
BEGIN; -- -- Alter field bar on foo -- DROP INDEX IF EXISTS "foos_foo_bar_id_efb062ad"; COMMIT;
Actually the main problem here is that dropping & adding constraints locks the entire table, and it might be catastrophic for some live production databases. IMHO this should either be documented or refactored. I look forward to hear your opinions on this, thank you in advance!
Change History (9)
comment:1 by , 22 months ago
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
---|
comment:2 by , 22 months ago
Hello Simon, thank you for your review! If that's OK for you one of my colleagues encountered this issue will work on a patch for this on Monday.
comment:3 by , 22 months ago
Totally okay Ömer, thanks to you and your coworker for taking the time to submit a patch.
comment:4 by , 21 months ago
Hello Simon, just letting you know that I will be working on this patch.
comment:6 by , 21 months ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:8 by , 8 months ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Patch needs improvement: | unset |
comment:9 by , 8 months ago
Patch needs improvement: | set |
---|
Dropping the foreign key and recreating it is effectively not necessary on PostgreSQL but it is on MySQL as this backend requires an index on the referencing side of the relation and will silently default to using an existing one if its present (see #31335 for more details).
Given the contention issues associated with dropping a foreign key on PostgreSQL I think it's a worthy investment to try to make things better on databases that are not affected by this quirk.
Would you like to work on a patch? The alter_field method is where you want to start looking and you'll likely need a feature flag to denote that foreign keys must be dropped or not based on the backend.