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

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

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)
Date: 2000-02-29 05:54:56
Message-ID: 38BB5F30.F106C512@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>     Thomas  made  his,  IMHO already complained because crippling
>     the user interface in a not stdconforming way.  My one  is  a
>     bad hack and therefore deprecated by definition.

I did not claim to have the final form; I ran out of time before
heading out on vacation. istm that solving the general case by
unrolling clauses should not be exhaustively difficult. I will
continue to pursue this as time permits.

>     Let's  look at all three possible implementations for 7.0 and
>     judge after.

Sounds good.

                     - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-02-29 05:59:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-02-29 05:48:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiples

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