From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
Date: | 2012-10-19 21:20:06 |
Message-ID: | 9553.1350681606@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> What about sticking a WHERE in there? I.e. FOREIGN KEY (foo, WHERE EACH
> ELEMENT OF bar) ...
Well, we don't really need it in the table-constraint case. The
column-constraint case is the sticking point.
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
but this seems a bit far afield from the column-constraint syntax.
OTOH, that's a pretty minor quibble. These work according to bison,
and they wouldn't make a grammarian run away screaming, so maybe we
should just be happy with that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-10-19 21:22:11 | Re: Deprecating RULES |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-19 21:08:18 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |