|From:||Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it>|
|To:||Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Il 21/01/12 21:42, Noah Misch ha scritto:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 08:18:48PM +0100, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
> I greatly like that name; it would still make sense for other
> aggregate types, should we ever expand its use. Please complete the
> name change: the documentation, catalog entries, etc should all call
> them something like "each foreign key constraints" (I don't
> particularly like that exact wording).
Ok, we'll go with "EACH Foreign Key Constraints" but I would allow the
synonym "Foreign Key Array", especially in the documentation.
> How about: FOREIGN KEY(col_a, EACH col_b, col_c) REFERENCES pktable
> (a, b, c)
We really like this syntax. However, as also Simon suggested, we'd go
for switching to this syntax, but stick to a simpler implementation for
9.2. We will then be able to expand the functionality, by keeping the
same syntax, from 9.3.
> To complete the ARRAY -> EACH transition, I would suggest names like
> CASCADE EACH/SET EACH NULL.
Marco will go through all your comments and will send version 3 shortly.
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it | www.2ndQuadrant.it
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2012-01-31 15:55:54||Re: Dry-run mode for pg_archivecleanup|
|Previous Message||Andrew Dunstan||2012-01-31 15:54:28||Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump -s dumps data?!|