| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, CG <cgg007(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes |
| Date: | 2006-02-24 04:00:48 |
| Message-ID: | 28738.1140753648@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Incidentally, shouldn't the existing RI queries (eg. SELECT ... FOR
> SHARE) explicity specify operator(pg_catalog.=)?
Then they'd be guaranteed to fail for datatypes/operators created in
other schemas, rather than only at risk of failing. Don't see that
as an improvement really. I think we should fix it properly for 8.2
but not institute any half-measures beforehand.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2006-02-24 04:25:51 | Re: PostgreSQL unit tests |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-02-24 03:27:23 | Re: PostgreSQL unit tests |