I'm having trouble coming up with a sensible translation for the last line of
this:
peter=# \d test*
Table public.test1
Column | Type | Modifiers
+-+---
a | integer | not null
Indexes:
test1_pkey PRIMARY KEY, btree (a)
Referenced by:
test2_y_fkey IN
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I'm having trouble coming up with a sensible translation for the last line of
this:
peter=# \d test*
Table public.test1
Column | Type | Modifiers
+-+---
a | integer | not null
Indexes:
test1_pkey PRIMARY KEY, btree (a)
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Indexes:
test1_pkey PRIMARY KEY, btree (a)
Referenced by:
test2_y_fkey IN test2 FOREIGN KEY (y) REFERENCES test1(a)
Is there a magic reason why the IN is capitalized?
should be lowercase.
What about PRIMARY KEY,
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Referenced by:
test2_y_fkey IN test2 FOREIGN KEY (y) REFERENCES test1(a)
Is there a magic reason why the IN is capitalized? (Maybe from would be
better anyway?)
I think it was probably done to make it more visually distinct from the
adjacent
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
Is there a magic reason why the IN is capitalized? (Maybe from would be
better anyway?)
Probably not. They were used to capitalizing IN for a subquery and it
carried over; should be lowercase.
Well in that line
2009/6/11 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
Referenced by:
test2_y_fkey IN test2 FOREIGN KEY (y) REFERENCES test1(a)
Is there a magic reason why the IN is capitalized? (Maybe from would be
better anyway?)
Isn't on the conventional preposition to use here? I would think of
this as a
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Or use TABLE:
test2_y_fkey TABLE test2 FOREIGN KEY (y) REFERENCES test1(a)
Hm, one of the things a lot of people said they liked about the
existing list is that it was almost copy-pastable as the command to
recreate the
Greg Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
So perhaps something like:
Referenced by:
TABLE test2 CONSTRAINT test2_y_fkey FOREIGN KEY (y) REFERENCES test1(a);
+1
... although making it *really* copy-and-pastable would require a bit
more attention to detail than I bet it's gotten. (Schema
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
So perhaps something like:
Referenced by:
TABLE test2 CONSTRAINT test2_y_fkey FOREIGN KEY (y) REFERENCES test1(a);
+1
... although making it *really* copy-and-pastable would
Greg Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
TABLE test2 CONSTRAINT test2_y_fkey FOREIGN KEY (y) REFERENCES test1(a);
+1
Even there the TABLE is kind of optional. It would stlil make
10 matches
Mail list logo
