Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:
> This is probably related to Lockhart's changes to allow
> not null/not deferrable to work (foreign key stuff).
Yeah, we need a better answer for NOT DEFERRABLE. Thomas just did a
quick & dirty kluge to allow testing of foreign keys, but as you see
it's broken a number of other things...
I still like the idea of turning NOT NULL into a single token before
it gets to the grammar, but Thomas was dissatisfied with that plan.
regards, tom lane