Re: Foreign key bugs (Re: [BUGS] "New" bug?? Serious - crashesbackend.)

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 #

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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