Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>
Cc: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)
Date: 2000-02-29 00:45:02
Message-ID: 27281.951785102@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The other alternative that was discussed was to put the onus on
>> analyze.c to fix things up.  Basically, we could make NOT DEFERRABLE
>> and the other subclauses of foreign key clauses be independent
>> clauses from the grammar's point of view; that is,

>     Yepp, that was the third possible solution we  talked  about.
>     No doubt that it is the best one, and something we both wanna
>     see at the end. Only that I fear we cannot build it  in  time
>     for  7.0  schedule.

Why not?  It's not *that* much work --- looked like maybe an
evening's project to me.  If no one else wants to do it, I will.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 2000-02-29 00:55:09
Subject: Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)
Previous:From: Jan WieckDate: 2000-02-29 00:43:17
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group