Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)

wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The other alternative that was discussed was to put the onus on
>> analyze.c to fix things up.  Basically, we could make NOT DEFERRABLE
>> and the other subclauses of foreign key clauses be independent
>> clauses from the grammar's point of view; that is,

>     Yepp, that was the third possible solution we  talked  about.
>     No doubt that it is the best one, and something we both wanna
>     see at the end. Only that I fear we cannot build it  in  time
>     for  7.0  schedule.

Why not?  It's not *that* much work --- looked like maybe an
evening's project to me.  If no one else wants to do it, I will.

			regards, tom lane