| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Neil Conway" <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE |
| Date: | 2002-05-13 05:14:46 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOIEJFCCAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > It seems to me that there's more and more need for an 'SET CONSTRAINTS
> > DISABLED' and 'SET CONSTRAINTS ENABLED' command that affects
> only foreign
> > keys.
>
> I really dislike the idea of referring to "constraints" but only affecting
> foreign key constraints.
All the other SET CONSTRAINTS statments refer only to foreign keys...
> And what would be the security/data-integrity ramifications of allowing
> this?
Well, if only super users could do it...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Enke, Michael | 2002-05-13 09:57:21 | Re: Bug #659: lower()/upper() bug on ->multibyte<- DB |
| Previous Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah. | 2002-05-13 04:50:07 | Re: Further info : Very high load average but no cpu utilization ? |