| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Foreign key joins revisited |
| Date: | 2021-12-29 15:16:14 |
| Message-ID: | 0e2dc320-4597-d522-5997-33db70c3dca8@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/28/21 15:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
>> On 12/28/21 8:26 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>>> Can with think of some other suitable reserved keyword?
>> I don't particularly like this whole idea anyway, but if we're going to
>> have it, I would suggest
>> JOIN ... USING KEY ...
> That would read well, which is nice, but I wonder if it wouldn't induce
> confusion. You'd have to explain that it didn't work like standard
> USING in the sense of merging the join-key columns.
>
> ... unless, of course, we wanted to make it do so. Would that
> be sane? Which name (referenced or referencing column) would
> the merged column have?
>
>
I agree this would cause confusion. I think your earlier suggestion of
JOIN ... FOREIGN KEY ...
seems reasonable.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-29 15:28:22 | Re: Foreign key joins revisited |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-12-29 14:48:14 | Re: [PATCH] allow src/tools/msvc/*.bat files to be called from the root of the source tree |