| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Foreign key joins revisited |
| Date: | 2021-12-29 15:28:22 |
| Message-ID: | 2030888.1640791702@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> In the 1990s, there were some SQL drafts that included syntax like
> JOIN ... USING PRIMARY KEY | USING FOREIGN KEY | USING CONSTRAINT ...
> AFAICT, these ideas just faded away because of other priorities, so if
> someone wants to revive it, some work already exists.
Interesting! One thing that bothered me about this whole line of
discussion is that we could get blindsided in future by the SQL
committee standardizing the same idea with slightly different
syntax/semantics. I think borrowing this draft text would greatly
improve the odds of that not happening. Do you have access to
full details?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-29 15:40:59 | Re: Report checkpoint progress in server logs |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-12-29 15:16:14 | Re: Foreign key joins revisited |