Re: s/UNSPECIFIED/SIMPLE/ in foreign key code?

> A small flaw in this plan is that in pg_constraint.confmatchtype,
> MATCH_UNSPECIFIED is stored as 'u'. In a green field I'd just rename
> that to 's' for SIMPLE, but it seems possible that this would confuse
> client-side code such as pg_dump or psql. A quick look shows that
> neither of those programs actually look directly at
> pg_constraint.confmatchtype, instead relying on backend functions when
> they want to deconstruct a foreign key constraint. But there could well
> be other client code that would notice the change. So I'm a bit torn
> as to whether to change it and create a release-note-worthy
> compatibility issue, or to leave it as-is (with documentation notes that
> "u" for MATCH_SIMPLE is a historical accident).

As user can also query system tables, so might be some of the application
have
also used this column's value. However I don't know if any has used.
I believe as this is not helping in a big way to adhere to standards,
so it is okay to keep "u" for MATCH SIMPLE.

> I notice that in SQL99 and later, the SQL committee introduced "MATCH
> SIMPLE" as a way to name the behavior that formerly had no name.

One of the documents which I referred as SQL-2003 specs says option is NONE.
The document which I referred is attached in mail.
I am sorry, if this is not the right document or I have mis-interpreted it.
I have downloaded SQL-2003 specs by following site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL:2003

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 3:08 AM
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: [HACKERS] s/UNSPECIFIED/SIMPLE/ in foreign key code?

Our foreign-key-related code uses MATCH_UNSPECIFIED to denote the
default foreign key match behavior. This corresponds to the wording
used in the SQL92 spec, for instance "If <match type> is not specified
or if FULL is specified, ...". But I always found it rather confusing;
it sounds like we don't know what match behavior we're supposed to
implement.

I notice that in SQL99 and later, the SQL committee introduced "MATCH
SIMPLE" as a way to name the behavior that formerly had no name.
So now they can write things like "If M specifies SIMPLE or FULL, ..."
which seems much nicer to me.

I think it would be a useful advance in readability if we replaced
UNSPECIFIED by SIMPLE throughout the FK code, and barring objections
I will go do that.

A small flaw in this plan is that in pg_constraint.confmatchtype,
MATCH_UNSPECIFIED is stored as 'u'. In a green field I'd just rename
that to 's' for SIMPLE, but it seems possible that this would confuse
client-side code such as pg_dump or psql. A quick look shows that
neither of those programs actually look directly at
pg_constraint.confmatchtype, instead relying on backend functions when
they want to deconstruct a foreign key constraint. But there could well
be other client code that would notice the change. So I'm a bit torn
as to whether to change it and create a release-note-worthy
compatibility issue, or to leave it as-is (with documentation notes that
"u" for MATCH_SIMPLE is a historical accident).

Thoughts?

regards, tom lane