Jeff Davis writes:
> Is it a problem to allow unique constraints to be deferrable until the
> end of the command though?
Yes. If you do have a case where this matters, the command updating the
referenced table is most likely different from the one updating the
referencing table, and so the comma
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 22:10 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Hmm, yes, looking in the SQL spec, I've just noticed this under 11.8,
> referential constraint definition:
>
> "The table constraint descriptor describing the definition> whose identifies the referenced
> columns shall indicate that the un
2009/7/28 Tom Lane :
> [sigh, forgot to cc hackers the first time ]
>
> Foreign key behavior is only sane if the referenced column(s) are
> unique. With the proposed patch, it is possible that the uniqueness
> check on the referenced columns is deferred, which means it might not
> occur till after
[sigh, forgot to cc hackers the first time ]
Foreign key behavior is only sane if the referenced column(s) are
unique. With the proposed patch, it is possible that the uniqueness
check on the referenced columns is deferred, which means it might not
occur till after an FK check does. Discuss.
