| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Dunstan <pgsql(at)tomd(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Proposed feature: Selective Foreign Keys | 
| Date: | 2013-12-04 20:11:26 | 
| Message-ID: | 529F8C6E.8040208@dunslane.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 12/04/2013 02:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>>> Well I guess we could say something like:
>>>>
>>>> FOREIGN KEY (a-col) WHERE (a-condition) REFERENCES b(b-col) WHERE
>>>> (b-condition)
>>>>
>>>> But it's somewhat ugly.
>> OK, those make sense. I wonder whether this should be done via a USING
>> clause on the constraint that pointed to the partial unique index. Or
>> would that be too obscure?
> I like what you have above.  Yeah, it requires the more verbose syntax
> for declaring a foreign key, but this feature is not going to be so
> heavily used that anyone will be in danger of worsening their carpal
> tunnel syndrome.
>
> 			
Fair enough. I guess in terms of *this* feature TomD would then need to 
adjust the location of his WHERE clause so it's before the REFERENCES 
clause.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-04 20:15:21 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-04 20:04:31 | Re: Status of FDW pushdowns |