Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?

From: "Sander Steffann" <steffann(at)nederland(dot)net>
To: <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
Date: 2005-10-29 12:54:31
Message-ID: 001f01c5dc87$e81a2390$64c8a8c0@balefirehome
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> You can have foreign keys between temp tables, just not between temp and
> permanent tables. The latter case is either fairly silly, or
> technically hard, depending on which direction you have in mind.

A temp table referencing a permanent table wouldn't be very silly IMHO...
Sander.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-29 13:13:18 Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
Previous Message Devrim GUNDUZ 2005-10-29 10:01:05 Update for supported platforms list

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-29 13:13:18 Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-10-29 04:27:47 Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?