| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org List" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Literals in foreign key definitions |
| Date: | 2010-02-04 15:00:39 |
| Message-ID: | 17420.1265295639@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> writes:
> FOREIGN KEY (base, true) REFERENCES unitclass (name, is_baseclass),
> FOREIGN KEY (derived, false) REFERENCES unitclass(name, is_baseclass)
> I can of course add a few triggers to force that constraint, but I think it would be nice if the above syntax could be made to work. Or is this already in 8.4 or 8.5 or is this a can of worms? Does the SQL spec disallow it?
Yes. FK constraints have to be columns vs. columns --- otherwise they
can't be represented in the information_schema views.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lew | 2010-02-04 15:12:39 | Re: Shall I apply normalization in the following case? |
| Previous Message | Chris Barnes | 2010-02-04 14:54:44 | Postgres wal shipping from 8.33 to 8.42. |