Re: set constraints behavior

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Neil Conway wrote:

> On Fri, 3 May 2002 10:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
> "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> > > My reading of this: if you specify ALL, only the constraints marked
> > > as DEFERRABLE are affected. If you specify a specific constraint,
> > > it is deferred, whether the constraint is marked as DEFERRABLE or
> > > not.
> > >
> > > Current Postgres behavior is incompatible with this interpretation:
> >
> > I think you missed Syntax Rule 2:
> > "The constraint specified by <constraint name> shall be DEFERRABLE"
>
> Ah, okay. Yeah, I missed that part. Stupid standards, they're
> practically unreadable :-)
>
> (My other question, regarding transaction and SET CONSTRAINTS,
> is still valid)

Didn't answer that part because I'm not sure what's best for that
given the way we handle "out of transaction" statements (the
other I remembered from past readings and rechecked).