FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?

From:	Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To:	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject:	FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
Date:	2005-10-29 00:34:11
Message-ID:	200510281734.11285.josh@agliodbs.com
Views:	Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:	2005-10-29 00:34:11 from Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>  2005-10-29 04:27:47 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>   2005-10-29 12:54:31 from "Sander Steffann" <steffann(at)nederland(dot)net>    2005-10-29 13:13:18 from Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>     2005-10-29 17:42:42 from Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>      2005-10-31 01:31:07 from Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>       2005-10-31 17:56:19 from "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> 📎        2005-10-31 18:15:43 from Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> 📎
Lists:	pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Responses

• Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted? at 2005-10-29 04:27:47 from Tom Lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Marc G. Fournier	2005-10-29 03:47:36	8.1 Release Candidate 1 Coming ...
Previous Message	Josh Berkus	2005-10-28 22:50:17	Re: TODO for plpgsql: RETURN should accept arbitrary composite expressions

Browse pgsql-patches by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Tom Lane	2005-10-29 04:27:47	Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
Previous Message	Jim Nasby	2005-10-28 22:10:19	Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)",