| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'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: | AW: Open 7.1 items |
| Date: | 2001-01-26 17:52:33 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633681E3@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-01-26 18:02:59 | RE: Open 7.1 items |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-26 17:47:42 | Re: Hardwired MAXBACKENDS limit could be history |