I wrote:
Anybody have DB2, or something else that might be thought to be pretty
close to spec-compliant?
Remarkably enough, the DB2 10.1 manuals at www.ibm.com say that it
doesn't support ON UPDATE SET NULL or ON UPDATE SET DEFAULT. I'm
disappointed in them :-(. But anyway it seems that we'll
I wrote:
On balance I think we ought to switch to set-all-the-columns, though
only in 9.3+ --- a back-patched behavioral change doesn't seem like a
good idea.
And here is a draft patch for that. I was interested to find that the
documentation already claims that all columns are set in the
While looking at Vik Reykja's pending patch to improve the FK triggers
by skipping processing when a NULL column didn't change, I started to
wonder whether that really had no user-visible semantic effect.
In particular, in ON UPDATE SET NULL/SET DEFAULT cases, it seemed like
this could change the
I wrote:
Have the SQL committee simply failed to notice that in
whacking this text around they changed the meaning? Which behavior is
actually implemented by other RDBMSes?
If anyone is up for actually trying this, here is a script to test the
behavior in question:
create table pp (f1 int,
On 16 June 2012 21:18, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Anybody have DB2, or something else that might be thought to be pretty
close to spec-compliant?
I have an Oracle DB, but they're not exactly known for spec
compliance. In fact they dodge this entire issue by not supporting ON
UPDATE
2012/6/16 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
I wrote:
Have the SQL committee simply failed to notice that in
whacking this text around they changed the meaning? Which behavior is
actually implemented by other RDBMSes?
If anyone is up for actually trying this, here is a script to test the
