From: | Grzegorz Szpetkowski <gszpetkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE doc small thing |
Date: | 2011-05-09 18:12:13 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=wObY6Wnn3PLoCezT5EZdjeubROw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
"NOTE 30 — If MATCH FULL or MATCH PARTIAL is specified for a
referential constraint and if the referencing table has only one
column specified in <referential constraint definition> for that
referential constraint, or if the referencing table has more than one
specified column for that <referential constraint definition>, but
none of those columns is nullable, then the effect is the same as if
no
<match type> were specified."
I found that in SQL:2003 draft, so in above case MATCH FULL is
syntactically ok, but rather confusing and effectively do nothing
(maybe just impression purpose).
Regards,
G. Sz.
2011/5/9 Grzegorz Szpetkowski <gszpetkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-altertable.html
>
> "To add a foreign key constraint to a table:
>
> ALTER TABLE distributors ADD CONSTRAINT distfk FOREIGN KEY (address)
> REFERENCES addresses (address) MATCH FULL;"
>
> This looks confusing to me. Is "MATCH FULL" works with non-composite
> (one adress column) foreign keys at all ?
>
> Regards,
> G. Sz.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2011-05-09 19:28:42 | Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application? |
Previous Message | Grzegorz Szpetkowski | 2011-05-09 15:56:18 | ALTER TABLE doc small thing |