From: | JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Foreign key bugs (Re: [BUGS] "New" bug?? Serious - crashesbackend.) |
Date: | 2000-07-11 22:18:20 |
Message-ID: | 200007112218.AAA20258@hot.jw.home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)kick(dot)com> writes:
> > Also, I realized something else that is a little wierd. When a temporary
> > table shadows a permanent table that you've made a foreign key reference
> > to, which table should it be going to check the constraint?
>
> Seems to me it should certainly be going to the permanent table, which
> is another argument in favor of making the link via OID not table name.
> The existing code will get this wrong.
But even if the trigger knows the OID of the table to query,
can it prepare a plan to do so via SPI? I think no.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2000-07-11 22:20:56 | Re: Foreign key bugs (Re: [BUGS] "New" bug?? Serious - crashesbackend.) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-11 22:09:19 | Re: Foreign key bugs + other problems |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-11 22:18:26 | Re: update on TOAST status' |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-11 22:09:19 | Re: Foreign key bugs + other problems |