On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 03:43:56PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 19:35 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > > > >> No, but does that mean we should increase the potential by adding in > > >> something that not everyone that runs PostgreSQL actually uses? > > > > > > Using this argument I could say that we don't need primary keys, foreign > > > keys, views or rules. Especially the latter 3 ;). > > > > *slap forehead* *groan* > > > > then again, if we could pull it out and move it into loadable modules ... > > hmmmm ... >:) > > Oh goodness. We could declare that we are better then MySQL because our > referential integrity is optional... oh wait...
Hey, if our RI was optional but we threw an error when you tried to use it when it was disabled we *would* be better than MySQL... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
