Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships
Date: 2010-10-26 19:09:01
Message-ID: 1288120141.22800.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On tis, 2010-10-26 at 11:53 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Case #2 is the strange one, I think. It's not actually just an
> adaptation of #1. #1 requires that all elements of the array have a
> corresponding PK value; but #2 just requires that one of them does.
> Peter, can you clarify case #2? Did you have a use case in mind?

[ That's the period references timestamp case. ]

You're right, it's probably not useful.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-26 19:18:53
Subject: Re: Extensible executor nodes for preparation of SQL/MED
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-10-26 19:02:27
Subject: Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group