Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > While not exactly what the spec invisions, I believe we can come > closer to the correct behavior by treating all of the referential actions > as non-deferrable while allowing deferment of NO ACTION and the check > itself.
Since no one seems to have objected, I've applied this patch.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
