From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
Date: | 2012-10-19 20:06:43 |
Message-ID: | 5081B2D3.3070604@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/19/2012 03:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This thought also crystallizes something else that had been bothering me,
> which is that "ELEMENT" alone is a pretty bad choice of syntax because
> it entirely fails to make clear which of these semantics is meant.
> I'm tempted to propose that we use
>
> FOREIGN KEY (foo, EACH ELEMENT OF bar) REFERENCES ...
>
> which is certainly more verbose than just "ELEMENT" but I think it
> makes it clearer that each array element is required to have a match
> separately. If we ever implemented the other behavior it could be
> written as "ANY ELEMENT OF".
>
> That doesn't get us any closer to having a working column-constraint
> syntax unfortunately, because EACH is not a reserved word either
> so "EACH ELEMENT REFERENCES" still isn't gonna work. I'm getting
> more willing to give up on having a column-constraint form of this.
>
>
"ALL" is a fully reserved keyword. Could we do something like "ALL
ELEMENTS"?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-10-19 20:21:46 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-19 20:02:52 | Re: hash_search and out of memory |