Horton

Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

View thread
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Marco Nenciarini <marco.nenciarini@2ndquadrant.it>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@2ndquadrant.it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-01-23T02:30:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow LEAKPROOF functions for better performance of security views.

  2. Improve labeling of pg_test_fsync open_sync test output.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 09:06:49PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> 
> > You currently forbid multi-column EACH FKs. ?I agree that we should allow only
> > one array column per FK; with more, the set of required PK rows would be
> > something like the Cartesian product of the elements of array columns.
> > However, there are no definitional problems, at least for NO ACTION, around a
> > FK constraint having one array column and N scalar columns. ?Whether or not
> > you implement that now, let's choose a table_constraint syntax leaving that
> > opportunity open. ?How about:
> > ? ? ? ?FOREIGN KEY(col_a, EACH col_b, col_c) REFERENCES pktable (a, b, c)
> 
> 
> I don't think we should be trying to cover every possible combination
> of arrays, non-arrays and all the various options. The number of
> combinations is making this patch larger than it needs to be and as a
> result endangers its being committed in this release just on committer
> time to cope with the complexity. We have a matter of weeks to get
> this rock solid.
> 
> Yes, lets keep syntax open for future additions, but lets please
> focus/edit this down to a solid, useful patch for 9.2.

+1.  Let's change the syntax to leave that door open but not use the
flexibility at this time.