Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> writes: > What about something more generic?
> CREATE TABLE <tname> ( <cname> <type> [(<expr>)] REFERENCES <t2name> > [(<t2expr>)] ) > Meaning, if <expr> is missing, it's taken <expr> = <cname>, if not, > it's the result of that expression the one that references the target > table. Doesn't seem terribly sensible as a column constraint: a column constraint ought to just be on the current column. If you want something more generic, the table-constraint syntax would be the place for it ... but that's not where we have a syntax problem. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers