Re: improve SET CONSTRAINTS - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: improve SET CONSTRAINTS
Date
Msg-id 873ctg6ebk.fsf@klamath.dyndns.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: improve SET CONSTRAINTS  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: improve SET CONSTRAINTS  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: improve SET CONSTRAINTS  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.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@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

Attachment

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: improve FOUND in PL/PgSQL
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: stand-alone composite types patch (was [HACKERS] Proposal: