| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Karim Nassar <karim(dot)nassar(at)NAU(dot)EDU>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Delete query takes exorbitant amount of time |
| Date: | 2005-03-25 18:47:22 |
| Message-ID: | 28057.1111776442@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 10:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Other than spec compliance, you mean? SQL99 says
>>>
>>> ... The declared type of each referencing column shall be
>>> comparable to the declared type of the corresponding referenced
>>> column.
> Tom had said SQL99 required this; I have pointed out SQL:2003, which
> supercedes the SQL99 standard, does not require this.
You're reading the wrong part of SQL:2003. 11.8 <referential constraint
definition> syntax rule 9 still has the text I quoted.
> Leading us back to my original point - what is the benefit of continuing
> with having a WARNING when that leads people into trouble later?
Accepting spec-compliant schemas.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-03-25 19:45:42 | Re: pg_autovacuum not having enough suction ? |
| Previous Message | Otto Blomqvist | 2005-03-25 18:29:30 | Re: pg_autovacuum not having enough suction ? |