Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1

Tom Lane wrote:

> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > just to give anyone a chance to complain, I'd like to
> > describe what I plan to implement for v6.6 in the referential
> > integrity (RI) corner.
>
> Jan, I have no comments about the RI features, but I am a little worried
> about not creating big headaches in merging different changes. Can we
> work out a schedule that will minimize tromping on each others' toes?

To avoid this kind of trouble is one of my reasons for the
status report. So others can see which areas will be affected
and we can coordinate a little.

> I am in the middle of some fairly extensive revisions in
> rewriteManip.c, rewriteHandler.c, and ruleutils.c --- basically,

My changes absolutely don't touch the rule system. Except for
a few lines in tcop, transam and tqual all the work is done
in trigger.c.

> I intended to finish these up in the next few days and commit them,
> but if you've already started major hacking in these files then maybe
> we should find another way.

Do it - I'll wait for you (would you please give me a sign
then). But I'm 97.5% sure our work has no collision areas.

> Also, I believe Thomas is in the middle of wide-ranging revisions in
> the parser, so you'd better coordinate with him on touching that area.

Ah - that's more critical. I just began to add the SET
CONSTRAINTS command and am through with thinking about the
CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER too. We all know that our parser is
a very delicate peace of software. Thomas, could you please
comment on this?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #