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
