| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
| Date: | 2012-10-22 16:12:48 |
| Message-ID: | 50857080.6020307@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/22/2012 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I tested, and indeed this seems to work:
>> CREATE TABLE t1 (c int[] WHERE EACH ELEMENT REFERENCES t2);
>> and it's perfectly sensible from an English-grammar standpoint too.
>> If we take that, how would we spell the table-constraint case exactly?
>> Grammatically I'd prefer
>> FOREIGN KEY (foo, EACH ELEMENT OF bar) REFERENCES
> Are people happy with these syntax proposals, or do we need some other
> color for the bikeshed?
I can live with it, although the different spelling is slightly jarring.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-10-22 16:13:20 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-10-22 16:10:51 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |