Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This was a mistake in the interpretation of the spec (modification of
> the same key row referenced by a foreign key constraint in the same
> statement more than once is an error is how we believe the spec meant
> it, but there's a case where they mention transaction and it got
> misinterpreted). I don't think anyone's permanently fixed it yet, but
> making the check disappear involves commenting out the two blocks that
> throw the message in backend/commands/trigger.c.
Would it be better to just do that until a proper solution is
implemented? What is the downside of not making any check?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
