| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Sander Steffann" <steffann(at)nederland(dot)net>, <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted? |
| Date: | 2005-10-29 14:11:39 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E48507FD@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of Sander Steffann
Sent: Sat 10/29/2005 1:54 PM
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com; Tom Lane
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted?
>> You can have foreign keys between temp tables, just not between temp and
>> permanent tables. The latter case is either fairly silly, or
>> technically hard, depending on which direction you have in mind.
> A temp table referencing a permanent table wouldn't be very silly IMHO...
Err, no, not silly, but difficult. But the other direction would be silly which is what I think Tom meant.
Regards, Dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-29 17:36:00 | Re: 8.1 Release Candidate 1 Coming ... |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-10-29 13:13:18 | Re: FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted? |