From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns |
Date: | 2000-01-24 19:25:34 |
Message-ID: | 200001241925.OAA07676@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> At 03:51 PM 1/24/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> >9) What really gets me though is what your problem is. This is a nearly
> >SQL-compliant implementation of a very important feature.
>
> Really? Dropping constraints fits the definition of "nearly compliant"?
> Not sure I'd agree with that. It makes it fairly useless for a very wide
> range
> of users coming from a commercial db environment, because such users tend
> to use referential integrity very heavily.
>
> Regarding the rest of your note, I should hope that what's clear is that
> folks don't really have a beef with your stepping up to the plate to
> implement an important feature, but rather the fait-accompli approach
> you took rather than raising the issue for discussion beforehand.
Maybe I am to blame for this. He asked on the list in November, and I
told him to do it the way he did it. I did not mention anything about
oids or constraints, and suggested a "something is better than nothing"
approach to the problem.
Seems most people do not agree with that suggestion I made.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-24 19:29:29 | Re: [HACKERS] column aliases |
Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2000-01-24 19:18:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns |