| From: | Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed feature: Selective Foreign Keys |
| Date: | 2013-12-04 23:19:54 |
| Message-ID: | 8CC88EC5-3598-4DAC-A7E9-B458DBBD63E9@tomd.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5 Dec 2013, at 06:10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>>> Well I guess we could say something like:
>>>>
>>>> FOREIGN KEY (a-col) WHERE (a-condition) REFERENCES b(b-col) WHERE
>>>> (b-condition)
>>>>
>
> I like what you have above.
Yeah. Given both the apparent ambiguity of the current placement, and the fact that the current placement would be right where you’d put a where clause on the referenced table, that’s the only sane way to do it. And it’s not so bad.
Cheers
Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Dunstan | 2013-12-04 23:26:42 | Re: Proposed feature: Selective Foreign Keys |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-12-04 22:26:23 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |