| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'Jan Wieck'" <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <root(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Open 7.1 items |
| Date: | 2001-01-26 21:30:42 |
| Message-ID: | 3898.980544642@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> FOREIGN KEY INSERT & UPDATE/DELETE in transaction "change violation"
>>
>> A well known issue, and I've asked multiple times how exactly
>> we want to define the behaviour for deferred constraints. Do
>> foreign keys reference just to a key value and are happy with
>> it's existance, or do they refer to a particular row?
> Sorry, to answer late. I didn't know this needed clarification.
> The answer is simple, foreign keys only reference a key value,
> not a particular row.
Cite chapter and verse in the spec, please?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-26 21:33:36 | Re: Hardwired MAXBACKENDS limit could be history |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-26 21:24:39 | Re: Open 7.1 items |