Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)

Tom Lane wrote:
> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The other alternative that was discussed was to put the onus on
> >> analyze.c to fix things up. Basically, we could make NOT DEFERRABLE
> >> and the other subclauses of foreign key clauses be independent
> >> clauses from the grammar's point of view; that is,
>
> > Yepp, that was the third possible solution we talked about.
> > No doubt that it is the best one, and something we both wanna
> > see at the end. Only that I fear we cannot build it in time
> > for 7.0 schedule.
>
> Why not? It's not *that* much work --- looked like maybe an
> evening's project to me. If no one else wants to do it, I will.

Your turn.

Thomas made his, IMHO already complained because crippling
the user interface in a not stdconforming way. My one is a
bad hack and therefore deprecated by definition.

Let's look at all three possible implementations for 7.0 and
judge after.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #