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

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) #