Re: Arrays and foreign keys

At 10:57 AM 8/10/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>Stephan Szabo wrote:
>> > This is an interesting point. Originally postgres integrity rules were
>> > based on a very general rules system where many things were possible to
>> > specify. I'm curious about the more recent addition of referential
>> > integrity to postgres (I know little about it), why it is such a
>> > specific solution and is not based on the more general postgres rules
>> > system?
>>
>> Because unfortunately the SQL spec for referential integrity cannot really
>> be implemented in the current rules system (or at least not in a way that
>> is terribly nice).
>
>So it wasn't feasible to extend the current rules system to support
>these oddities, instead of implementing the specific solution?

Since Jan apparently knows more about the current rules system than anyone
else on the planet (he's done a lot of work in that area in the past), and
since he designed the RI system, my guess is that the simple answer to your
question is "yes".

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.