| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays |
| Date: | 2011-11-21 16:30:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0zg9dZcfY=xR30MBK0soPHXWjLAGZVPPVsE-bUf+C_Axw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Gabriele Bartolini
<gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> wrote:
> This patch adds basic support of arrays in foreign keys, by allowing to
> define a referencing column as an array of elements having the same type as
> the referenced column in the referenced table.
> Every NOT NULL element in the referencing array is matched against the
> referenced table.
I like the idea of being able to define more flexible foreign keys,
but are we gilding the lily here? The proposed solution is really
quite specific to the nuances of arrays. Perhaps there is a more
general expression based syntax that leaves the door open for other
types conditions such as dealing fields dependent on other fields?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-11-21 16:40:39 | Re: Core Extensions relocation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-21 14:55:15 | Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation |