Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, CG <cgg007(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes
Date: 2006-02-23 20:51:18
Message-ID: 20060223205118.GU4984@surnet.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Any thoughts about details? My feeling is that we should tie RI
> semantics to btree opclasses, same as we have done for ORDER BY
> and some other SQL constructs, but I don't have a concrete proposal
> right offhand. The btree idea may not cover cross-type FKs anyway.

This means getting rid of SPI usage, right?

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-02-23 21:10:14 memory context for tuplesort return values
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2006-02-23 19:57:09 Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes