| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Chris Fischer <Chris(dot)Fischer(at)channeladvisor(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Problem identifying constraints which should not be inherited |
| Date: | 2008-03-20 14:06:06 |
| Message-ID: | 7407.1206021966@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> NikhilS escribi:
>> Ok, I understand. But even then this could patch could be considered even if
>> it does not solve the TODO completely, no? It atleast disallows ONLY ADD
>> CONSTRAINT on the parent.
> No, because you would then feel that the TODO item is completed and not
> provide a patch for the whole problem :-)
More to the point, it takes a capability away from the user without
actually solving the problem we need to solve, namely to guarantee
consistency between parent and child constraints. You can be sure
that there is someone out there who will complain that we've broken
his application when we disallow this, and we need to be able to
point to some positive benefit we got from it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rui Martins | 2008-03-20 15:21:49 | Re: BUG #4044: Incorrect RegExp substring Output |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-20 14:01:53 | Re: BUG #4044: Incorrect RegExp substring Output |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-20 14:24:35 | Re: Proposal: new large object API |
| Previous Message | NikhilS | 2008-03-20 13:25:43 | Re: Problem identifying constraints which should not be inherited |