On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 me
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 mentio
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'
