| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
| Date: | 2012-10-22 16:13:20 |
| Message-ID: | 201210221813.20301.andres@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, October 22, 2012 06:08:32 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I tested, and indeed this seems to work:
> > CREATE TABLE t1 (c int[] WHERE EACH ELEMENT REFERENCES t2);
> >
> > and it's perfectly sensible from an English-grammar standpoint too.
> > If we take that, how would we spell the table-constraint case exactly?
> > Grammatically I'd prefer
> >
> > FOREIGN KEY (foo, EACH ELEMENT OF bar) REFERENCES
>
> Are people happy with these syntax proposals, or do we need some other
> color for the bikeshed?
Except that I'd prefer a WHERE in the table-constraint case as well for
consistencies sake I am unsurprisingly happy with the proposal.
Greetings,
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-22 16:17:33 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-10-22 16:12:48 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |