| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2012-10-22 16:10:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAqE5cGopTgLkGxP_2QwEz6n5TCZvGszEzKQSOya1DZpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/10/22 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> I wrote:
>> 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
>
> Are people happy with these syntax proposals, or do we need some other
> color for the bikeshed?
I am ok
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-10-22 16:12:48 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-22 16:08:32 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |