| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 15:48:32 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0305151614090.2756-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-15 15:48:50 | Re: Client encoding conversion for binary data (was Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-05-15 15:39:37 | Re: Client encoding conversion for binary data (was Re: |