| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SET NULL on NOT NULL field |
| Date: | 2003-01-28 16:45:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20030128164529.GA14694@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 21:23:01 -0800,
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> > I just noticed you can do this:
> >
> > create table blah (
> > a not null references test on delete set null
> > )
> >
> > Should that be prevented? It shouldn't be too hard to test for really...
>
> Maybe, although I don't think the spec prevents it. In practice
> I'd guess it ends up being a more expensive way of saying no action.
No. You end up not being able to delete the referenced keys. I tested
this in 7.3 and you get the following message when you try it:
ERROR: ExecUpdate: Fail to add null value in not null attribute col1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2003-01-28 16:56:40 | Re: Vacuum verbose output? |
| Previous Message | Uros Gruber | 2003-01-28 16:35:08 | Re: tsearch comments |