At 03:51 PM 1/24/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>9) What really gets me though is what your problem is. This is a nearly
>SQL-compliant implementation of a very important feature.
Really? Dropping constraints fits the definition of "nearly compliant"?
Not sure I'd agree with that. It makes it fairly useless for a very wide
range
of users coming from a commercial db environment, because such users tend
to use referential integrity very heavily.
Regarding the rest of your note, I should hope that what's clear is that
folks don't really have a beef with your stepping up to the plate to
implement an important feature, but rather the fait-accompli approach
you took rather than raising the issue for discussion beforehand.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
