Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)

From: wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck)
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)
Date: 2000-02-29 00:55:09
Message-ID: m12PawP-0003kGC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The other alternative that was discussed was to put the onus on
> >> analyze.c to fix things up. Basically, we could make NOT DEFERRABLE
> >> and the other subclauses of foreign key clauses be independent
> >> clauses from the grammar's point of view; that is,
>
> > Yepp, that was the third possible solution we talked about.
> > No doubt that it is the best one, and something we both wanna
> > see at the end. Only that I fear we cannot build it in time
> > for 7.0 schedule.
>
> Why not? It's not *that* much work --- looked like maybe an
> evening's project to me. If no one else wants to do it, I will.

Your turn.

Thomas made his, IMHO already complained because crippling
the user interface in a not stdconforming way. My one is a
bad hack and therefore deprecated by definition.

Let's look at all three possible implementations for 7.0 and
judge after.

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) #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2000-02-29 01:20:50 Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-02-29 00:45:02 Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)