From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Matheus de Oliveira <matioli(dot)matheus(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT |
Date: | 2018-03-06 14:50:55 |
Message-ID: | 61a6f06c-2b27-444a-ca0d-11d053839e27@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Matheus,
On 3/3/18 1:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/20/18 10:10, Matheus de Oliveira wrote:
>> Besides that, there is a another change in this patch on current ALTER
>> CONSTRAINT about deferrability options. Previously, if the user did
>> ALTER CONSTRAINT without specifying an option on deferrable or
>> initdeferred, it was implied the default options, so this:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE tbl
>> ALTER CONSTRAINT con_name;
>>
>> Was equivalent to:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE tbl
>> ALTER CONSTRAINT con_name NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE;
>
> Oh, that seems wrong. Probably, it shouldn't even accept that syntax
> with an empty options list, let alone reset options that are not
> mentioned. Can you prepare a separate patch for this issue?
Can you prepare the patch that Peter has requested and post on a new
thread? Please respond here with the reference (or email me directly)
and I will add to the CF.
Meanwhile, I'll push this patch to the next CF as Andres has
recommended, hearing no arguments to the contrary.
Thanks,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2018-03-06 14:54:33 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order? |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2018-03-06 14:44:31 | Re: Re: Boolean partitions syntax |