Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns

> At 03:51 PM 1/24/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> >9) What really gets me though is what your problem is. This is a nearly
> >SQL-compliant implementation of a very important feature.
> 
> Really?  Dropping constraints fits the definition of "nearly compliant"?
> Not sure I'd agree with that.  It makes it fairly useless for a very wide
> range
> of users coming from a commercial db environment, because such users tend
> to use referential integrity very heavily.
> 
> Regarding the rest of your note, I should hope that what's clear is that
> folks don't really have a beef with your stepping up to the plate to
> implement an important feature, but rather the fait-accompli approach
> you took rather than raising the issue for discussion beforehand.

Maybe I am to blame for this.  He asked on the list in November, and I
told him to do it the way he did it.  I did not mention anything about
oids or constraints, and suggested a "something is better than nothing"
approach to the problem.

Seems most people do not agree with that suggestion I made.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle [email protected]               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026