On 10/22/12 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Well, I think if that's the best we can do, you original proposal of >> ditching the column constraint syntax altogether might be for the >> best. I wasn't too excited about that before, but I think having two >> different syntaxes is going to be even worse. In some ways, it's >> actually sort of sensible, because the referring side isn't really the >> column itself; it's some value extracted therefrom. You can imagine >> other variants of that as well, such as the recently-suggested > >> FOREIGN KEY ((somecol).member_name) REFERENCES othertab (doohicky) > >> Now, what would the column-constraint version of that look like? Is >> it even sensible to think that there SHOULD be a column-constraint >> version of that? I'm not convinced it is sensible, so maybe decreeing >> that the table constraint version must be used to handle all >> non-trivial cases is more sensible than I initially thought. > > I could easily go with that ...
I'm getting around to that conclusion as well. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
