| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE .... make constraint DEFERRABLE |
| Date: | 2010-06-03 08:33:01 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinn3h-IKeHGX2ddnGkymN-F1JLU_63PvAb2Yj9l@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3 June 2010 02:06, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Also, foreign keys can't be defined that refer to a deferrable primary
>> key. That isn't mentioned at all in the manual with regard to the
>> DEFERRABLE clause, though it is mentioned in the FK section. You get
>> this error message
>> ERROR: cannot use a deferrable unique constraint for referenced table
>>
>> The use case for this feature looks a little narrow at present. Can we
>> do something about usability?
>
> Not sure why that was a limitation.
>
That's in accordance with the SQL spec.
I didn't think of this case originally, but all sorts of complications
would arise if we were to allow FKs to refer to deferrable PKs. For
example, if there are 2 temporarily duplicated PKs, and you update one
of them, what would the FK's ON UPDATE actions do? I'm not convinced
there is any sensible answer to this question.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-06-03 08:45:10 | [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-06-03 07:56:54 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |