From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Deferred uniqueness versus foreign keys |
Date: | 2009-07-28 21:10:54 |
Message-ID: | 8e2dbb700907281410m3e73ec93p2dd1f0ad3dbb8f53@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/7/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> [sigh, forgot to cc hackers the first time ]
>
> Foreign key behavior is only sane if the referenced column(s) are
> unique. With the proposed patch, it is possible that the uniqueness
> check on the referenced columns is deferred, which means it might not
> occur till after an FK check does. Discuss.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Hmm, yes, looking in the SQL spec, I've just noticed this under 11.8,
referential constraint definition:
"The table constraint descriptor describing the <unique constraint
definition> whose <unique column list> identifies the referenced
columns shall indicate that the unique constraint is not deferrable."
which seems like a sensible policy now that I think about it.
- Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2009-07-28 21:11:13 | Re: plpgsql: support identif%TYPE[], (from ToDo) |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2009-07-28 21:08:15 | Re: WIP: to_char, support for EEEE format |