Tom Lane wrote:
> wieck@debis.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@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
