From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposed feature: Selective Foreign Keys |
Date: | 2013-12-04 19:40:02 |
Message-ID: | 23526.1386186002@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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)
>>>
>>> But it's somewhat ugly.
> OK, those make sense. I wonder whether this should be done via a USING
> clause on the constraint that pointed to the partial unique index. Or
> would that be too obscure?
I like what you have above. Yeah, it requires the more verbose syntax
for declaring a foreign key, but this feature is not going to be so
heavily used that anyone will be in danger of worsening their carpal
tunnel syndrome.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-12-04 19:40:56 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-12-04 19:39:27 | Re: Status of FDW pushdowns |