| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Grzegorz Szpetkowski <gszpetkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE doc small thing |
| Date: | 2011-05-19 20:19:11 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTim8zRxa0=DRSQZ26Fqd2SmOdmP-AQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Grzegorz Szpetkowski
<gszpetkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> "NOTE 30 — If MATCH FULL or MATCH PARTIAL is specified for a
> referential constraint and if the referencing table has only one
> column specified in <referential constraint definition> for that
> referential constraint, or if the referencing table has more than one
> specified column for that <referential constraint definition>, but
> none of those columns is nullable, then the effect is the same as if
> no
> <match type> were specified."
>
> I found that in SQL:2003 draft, so in above case MATCH FULL is
> syntactically ok, but rather confusing and effectively do nothing
> (maybe just impression purpose).
I guess we could remove it, but I don't think it's really doing any harm.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-05-19 21:04:29 | error codes table |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-19 20:17:10 | Re: 5.3.5. Foreign Keys (The SQL Language) possible enhance |