DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
	h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
	b=Cg6MvANbizCY8eonb5zVBCCN2qFP0BFaccD+3WMv+gqRtuxYg9D8WHVKL/iWM4V4lGBe3jNav+ZeQS/d/BJc7/hi5hl+gCn7eBe1Ud/ZreCK/VVlsJiWC6kKqx48mEfmXU1Eq7uhr8PeM5PD1IkNUYWPUMrNwJwJyOjStMTjdRI=;
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: chester c young <chestercyoung@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: apparent RI bug
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
Cc: sql pgsql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080403132648.O21440@megazone.bigpanda.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <447857.57570.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

--- Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> wrote:

> > is 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.

this is very good news that there is a reason why the RI did not work,
which is to say, RI not working randomly is very frightening


> > 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.

in my opinion the most important thing is that it's documented.

btw, cheers! you're my hero of the week!!


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com