| From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: set constraints behavior |
| Date: | 2002-05-03 18:12:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20020503141201.75e2163c.nconway@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 3 May 2002 10:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
"Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> > My reading of this: if you specify ALL, only the constraints marked
> > as DEFERRABLE are affected. If you specify a specific constraint,
> > it is deferred, whether the constraint is marked as DEFERRABLE or
> > not.
> >
> > Current Postgres behavior is incompatible with this interpretation:
>
> I think you missed Syntax Rule 2:
> "The constraint specified by <constraint name> shall be DEFERRABLE"
Ah, okay. Yeah, I missed that part. Stupid standards, they're
practically unreadable :-)
(My other question, regarding transaction and SET CONSTRAINTS,
is still valid)
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-05-03 18:46:30 | Re: set constraints behavior |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-05-03 17:39:28 | Re: set constraints behavior |