Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- From: "Sander Steffann" <steffann(at)nederland(dot)net>
- To: <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:54:31 +0200
You can have foreign keys between temp tables, just not between temp and permanent tables. The latter case is either fairly silly, or technically hard, depending on which direction you have in mind.
A temp table referencing a permanent table wouldn't be very silly IMHO... Sander.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- From: Martijn van Oosterhout
- Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- References:
- FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- From: Josh Berkus
- Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- From: Tom Lane
- FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- Prev by Date: Re: 8.1 Release Candidate 1 Coming ...
- Next by Date: Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- Previous by thread: Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- Next by thread: Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
- Indexes: