Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes

On Mar 4, 2006, at 9:22 , Tom Lane wrote:

> If we did this then RI checks would no longer be subvertible by  
> rules or
> user triggers.  Although I've been heard to argue that that's a  
> feature,
> I think the majority of people feel it's a bug, and wouldn't be  
> sorry to
> see it go.

Just to check, are you referring to constraint triggers here? (I  
don't believe so, as I've been using constraint triggers in cases  
other than referential integrity and as I read it, you're only  
referring to RI.) Currently constraint triggers are the only way to  
defer constraint checking to the end of a transaction. Until we have  
some kind of support for multiple updates in a single statement (or  
perhaps deferred constraints, but I'd prefer the former), I'd like  
constraint triggers to hang around.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com