From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: multi column foreign key for implicitly unique columns |
Date: | 2004-08-17 15:38:14 |
Message-ID: | 4876.1092757094@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> ... It sounds like it'd be a pain at best.
Also, that would directly violate the SQL spec's model of dependencies,
with possibly unpleasant consequences. The current implementation does
exactly what SQL says to do. I cite from SQL99 11.99 DROP CONSTRAINT:
3) If TC is a unique constraint and RC is a referential constraint
whose referenced table is T and whose referenced columns are the
unique columns of TC, then RC is said to be dependent on TC.
...
6) If RESTRICT is specified, then:
a) No table constraint shall be dependent on TC.
NOTE 195 - If CASCADE is specified, then any such dependent
object will be dropped by the effective execution of the
<alter table statement> specified in the General Rules of this
Subclause.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2004-08-17 15:54:14 | Re: SELECT MAX(c) FROM (SELECT ... FOR UPDATE) AS foo |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-08-17 15:24:18 | Re: multi column foreign key for implicitly unique columns |