On 11 Aug 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 18:40, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
On 11 Aug 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
Maybe this will do it:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/sql-set-constraints.html
Saw this but my take was it required the original constraint to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote:
Yes. Either DEFERRABLE or INITIALLY DEFERRED must be given in order for
set constraints to be meaningful. This might be another good place to
consider a little clarification (or maybe a doc note in
Yuup, always name constraints so it's easier to remove them. And if you name them meaningfully, then others might understand why they exist! (or later after a coffeeless morning)
Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote:
Yes. Either DEFERRABLE or INITIALLY DEFERRED
I have two tables in two databases (Pg 7.2.1 - yes I need to upgrade but
there are several other dependencies I have to resolve first) and I need
to update one database's tables so they can be merged into the other
database's table. I know I can drop the constraints and update the tables
(primary
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote:
Yes. Either DEFERRABLE or INITIALLY DEFERRED must be given in order for
set constraints to be meaningful. This might be another good place to
consider a little clarification (or maybe a doc note in the interactive
docs)
Phew. I thought I was going
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Dennis Gearon wrote:
Yuup, always name constraints so it's easier to remove them. And if
you name them meaningfully, then others might understand why they
exist! (or later after a coffeeless morning)
This application has grown as a fungus: in the dark and nourished on
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 18:40, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
On 11 Aug 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
Maybe this will do it:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/sql-set-constraints.html
Saw this but my take was it required the original constraint to be created
with the deferred(able)
