From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
To: chester c young <chestercyoung@yahoo.com>
Cc: sql pgsql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: apparent RI bug
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20080403132648.O21440@megazone.bigpanda.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <811324.18014.qm@web54305.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <811324.18014.qm@web54305.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, chester c young wrote:
> --- Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it possible you ever had a before delete trigger that just did a
> > return
> > NULL rather than raising an exception? IIRC, explicitly telling the
> > system to ignore the delete will work on the referential actions.
>
> yes, it is possible, for example, a function without a body or without
> a "return old".
>
> are you saying this would override the RI constraint?
If it returned something that would have prevented the delete without an
error, yes.
> if so, is this by design?
It's basically an ongoing question (without concensus AFAIK) about whether
a rule or trigger should be allowed to stop the referential action and
what should happen if it does.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com, chestercyoung@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: apparent RI bug
In-Reply-To: <20080403132648.O21440@megazone.bigpanda.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox