Re: notice about costly ri checks (2)

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: notice about costly ri checks (2)
Date: 2004-03-05 15:29:57
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0403051626430.12725@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches


> The reason I think we have to mention the constraint name is that you
> could have a multi-column primary/foreign key, so instead of mentioning
> each column, we just mention the constraint name, which should be easy
> to identify.

Sure. See attempt (3). However it is still a "NOTICE".
Should I make version (4) with a WARNING ?

--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-03-05 15:31:03 Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-05 15:14:50 Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW