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

Re: Delete query takes exorbitant amount of time

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2005-03-25 19:45:42
Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum not having enough suction ?
Previous:From: Otto BlomqvistDate: 2005-03-25 18:29:30
Subject: Re: pg_autovacuum not having enough suction ?

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