Re: [BUGS] RI within PLPGSQL

2003-12-12 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, cnliou wrote: > Thank you very much for your explanation! > > ¡° Include¡m"Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>¡n > wrote: > >There have been discussions in the past about when cascade > events > >should occur. The code currently does what I believe was > last > >agreed upon, a

Re: [BUGS] RI within PLPGSQL

2003-12-12 Thread cnliou
Thank you very much for your explanation! ¡° Include¡m"Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>¡n wrote: >There have been discussions in the past about when cascade events >should occur. The code currently does what I believe was last >agreed upon, although its behavior is fairly wierd for deferred

Re: [BUGS] RI within PLPGSQL

2003-12-12 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, cnliou wrote: > It looks to me a referential integrity problem (only?) > within PLPGSQL. Plesase see the test result below. There have been discussions in the past about when cascade events should occur. The code currently does what I believe was last agreed upon, although

[BUGS] RI within PLPGSQL

2003-12-12 Thread cnliou
Hi! It looks to me a referential integrity problem (only?) within PLPGSQL. Plesase see the test result below. Thank you! CN === CREATE TABLE test1(c1 INTEGER PRIMARY KEY) WITHOUT OIDS; CREATE TABLE test2 ( c1 INTEGER, c2 INTEGER, PRIMARY KEY (c1,c2), CONSTRAINT ctest2 FOREIGN KEY (c1)