| From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
|---|---|
| To: | Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au |
| Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE |
| Date: | 2002-05-13 04:24:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20020513042422.GA29053@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:17:07AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > I'm happy w/o the FORCE option (just let TRUNCATE do it), but if enough
> > people think that the FORCE keyword should be added to allow overriding of
> > triggers, that could be a good compromise.
> >
> > But, please, don't take away the ability to TRUNCATE. Doing it when there
> > are triggers is one the strengths of TRUNCATE, IMNSHO.
>
> It seems to me that there's more and more need for an 'SET CONSTRAINTS
> DISABLED' and 'SET CONSTRAINTS ENABLED' command that affects only foreign
> keys.
I really dislike the idea of referring to "constraints" but only affecting
foreign key constraints.
And what would be the security/data-integrity ramifications of allowing
this?
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-13 04:31:33 | Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] troubleshooting pointers) |
| Previous Message | Joel Burton | 2002-05-13 04:14:54 | Re: TRUNCATE |