| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships |
| Date: | 2010-10-25 19:43:05 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimcWAesj+cDh62qxXKuzrvA--+ULJa8i-kSr=Pn@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Currently, foreign keys only work with the = operator (the name might be
> different, but it needs to behave like equality). I'm thinking there
> are other scenarios that could be useful, for example with arrays and
> range types.
>
> Example #1: Foreign key side is an array, every member must match some
> PK.
>
> CREATE TABLE pk (a int PRIMARKY KEY, ...);
>
> CREATE TABLE fk (x int[] REFERENCES pk (a), ...);
I've wished for this before when doing app dev with PG. I think it
would be pretty neat. The other cases seem potentially useful, too,
but especially this one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anders Steinlein | 2010-10-25 19:46:02 | Bug: citext not working in non-public schema |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-25 19:40:07 | Re: ask for review of MERGE |