| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware |
| Date: | 2003-05-15 16:07:30 |
| Message-ID: | 200305151607.h4FG7UE04642@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> SET CONSTRAINTS still does what it used to do, which is to alter the
> > >> behavior of all constraints with the given name. We should probably
> > >> expand the syntax so that a particular table name can be mentioned.
> >
> > > Is this a TODO?
> >
> > Nobody objected to my statement, so I guess so ...
>
> I just hate to see us breaking the SQL standard for no technical reason.
Does it actually break the standard of just extend it. I don't see any
problem with extending it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-05-15 16:57:05 | Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-15 15:48:50 | Re: Client encoding conversion for binary data (was Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs) |