Re: Foreign key joins revisited

When you join by id, the join is unique. You can have combinations of
fields, with multiple fields. Is it a maximum fields question.

Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb am So., 26. Dez. 2021,
22:37:

> On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 16:24, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> wrote:
>
>
>> I think if we combine the ON KEY ... TO ... part of my idea, with your
>> idea, we have a complete neat solution.
>>
>> Maybe we can make them a little more similar syntax wise though.
>>
>> Could you accept "ON KEY" instead of "FOREIGN KEY" for your idea?
>> And would a simple dot work instead of ->?
>>
>
> I’m not fixed on the details; writing FOREIGN KEY just felt natural, and I
> copied the -> from the earlier messages, but I didn’t really mean to
> promote those specific syntax elements.
>
> One question to consider: which columns get included in the join and under
> what names? When we join USING there is just one copy of each column in the
> USING, not one from each source table. This is one of the nicest features
> of USING. With this new feature it seems like it might make sense to omit
> the join fields from the added table; tricky bit is they don't necessarily
> have the same name as existing fields as must be the case with USING.
>
>