Re: improve SET CONSTRAINTS

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
> > I also took the opportunity to remove a bunch of code in trigger.c
> > that wasn't doing anything useful, AFAICS -- according to SQL99, SET
> > CONSTRAINTS should only apply to the current transaction.
>
> I would assume that Jan and Stephan put that code in for a reason.

In that case, some documentation of its intended purpose would be
nice. It doesn't help that the code I cut out was a particularly ugly
cut-n-paste job.

As an aside, I'm not too fond of adding code with zero present
functionality with the vague idea that it may one day be useful.

> "Rip out anything I can't find in SQL99" is not the way we do things
> around here ...

I think that's unfair, and it's certainly not the methodology I'm
following.

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC