| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | gparc(at)free(dot)fr, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18295: In PostgreSQL a unique index on targeted columns is sufficient to support a foreign key |
| Date: | 2024-01-26 13:53:41 |
| Message-ID: | 578afb7d3a88969b4d77f49280cd30247ee4b687.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 02:19 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 at 01:14, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> I'd only adjust the following addition to be a new paragraph:
Check.
> and drop the "also" at the same time.
Done.
> I also noticed that, generally, we're not that consistent if we spell
> it "foreign-key" or "foreign key". You're introducing "foreign key"
> in a location where there are a couple of "foreign-key"s. Maybe it's
> better to be consistent in at least that location?
Yes, you are right. I noticed that everywhere else on the page the
form "foreign key" is used, so that's what I did in the attached patch.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Doc-foreign-keys-can-reference-unique-indexes.patch | text/x-patch | 3.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-26 17:32:02 | Re: BUG #18313: No error triggered when subtracting an interval from a timestamp |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-01-26 13:19:13 | Re: BUG #18295: In PostgreSQL a unique index on targeted columns is sufficient to support a foreign key |