From: | chester c young <chestercyoung(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | sql pgsql <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: apparent RI bug |
Date: | 2008-04-04 01:53:03 |
Message-ID: | 447857.57570.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
--- Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> wrote:
> > is 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.
this is very good news that there is a reason why the RI did not work,
which is to say, RI not working randomly is very frightening
> > 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.
in my opinion the most important thing is that it's documented.
btw, cheers! you're my hero of the week!!
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | luke.78@libero.it | 2008-04-05 17:46:55 | Problem with now() in function pgsql |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2008-04-03 20:35:15 | Re: apparent RI bug |