| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
| Date: | 2012-10-19 21:08:18 |
| Message-ID: | 9189.1350680898@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What about something more generic?
> CREATE TABLE <tname> ( <cname> <type> [(<expr>)] REFERENCES <t2name>
> [(<t2expr>)] )
> Meaning, if <expr> is missing, it's taken <expr> = <cname>, if not,
> it's the result of that expression the one that references the target
> table.
Doesn't seem terribly sensible as a column constraint: a column
constraint ought to just be on the current column. If you want
something more generic, the table-constraint syntax would be the
place for it ... but that's not where we have a syntax problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-19 21:20:06 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-10-19 21:03:56 | Re: Deprecating RULES |