Re: why it doesn't work? referential integrity
От | Gregory Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: why it doesn't work? referential integrity |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87r6ma16mv.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: why it doesn't work? referential integrity ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: why it doesn't work? referential integrity
|
Список | pgsql-general |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: > 2007/8/11, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>: >> >> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > checked_by INT REFERENCES users (id) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE SET NULL, >> >> > CONTEXT: SQL statement "UPDATE ONLY "public"."tasks" SET "worker" = >> > NULL WHERE $1 OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) "worker"" >> >> This says you mistyped the constraint above to refer to tasks(worker) instead >> of users(id). Did you? >> >> -- > > Im sorry. I don't understand. It's look like wrong evaluation order: > > 1. delete from users There's no delete from users in evidence here. Check how your constraints are actually defined, it doesn't look like they're defined they way you claimed they are -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: