| From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: improve SET CONSTRAINTS |
| Date: | 2002-08-15 02:33:35 |
| Message-ID: | 873ctg6ebk.fsf@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Also, don't we run the trigger queue after each statement anyway? So why
> does it need to be run by SET CONSTRAINTS explicitly?
I've been pulling my hair out regarding this since Stephen pointed it
out earlier on -patches. Although I could have *sworn* I had a
test-case in which we did the wrong thing, I can't seem to find one
now :-)
Sorry for the spam -- AFAICT we did the right thing originally. I've
attached a revised patch that just includes the documentation
improvements, code cleanup, and regression tests.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| set_constraints-2.patch | text/x-patch | 19.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-15 02:43:01 | Re: stand-alone composite types patch (was [HACKERS] Proposal: |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-08-15 02:20:50 | Re: improve FOUND in PL/PgSQL |