From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | chester c young <chestercyoung(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | sql pgsql <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: apparent RI bug |
Date: | 2008-04-03 20:35:15 |
Message-ID: | 20080403132648.O21440@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, chester c young wrote:
> --- Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Is it possible you ever had a before delete trigger that just did a
> > return
> > NULL rather than raising an exception? IIRC, explicitly telling the
> > system to ignore the delete will work on the referential actions.
>
> yes, it is possible, for example, a function without a body or without
> a "return old".
>
> are you saying this would override the RI constraint?
If it returned something that would have prevented the delete without an
error, yes.
> if so, is this by design?
It's basically an ongoing question (without concensus AFAIK) about whether
a rule or trigger should be allowed to stop the referential action and
what should happen if it does.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | chester c young | 2008-04-04 01:53:03 | Re: apparent RI bug |
Previous Message | chester c young | 2008-04-03 20:16:42 | Re: apparent RI bug |