[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5118?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13004734#comment-13004734
]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-5118:
--------------------------------------
Those are two different foreign keys according to my reading of the 2008 SQL
Standard. According to part 2, section 4.17.3 (table constraints): "The
ordering of the lists of referencing column names and referenced column names
is implementation-defined, but shall be such that corresponding column names
occupy corresponding positions in each list. "
> Relational integrity
> --------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-5118
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5118
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.7.1.1
> Environment: WinXPpro@32bit, Apache Derby EMBEDDED
> Reporter: Unai Vivi
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: keys
>
> A foreign composite key constraint doesn't match the corresponding primary
> composite key unless the order of the columns that make up the composite key
> is the same.
> E.g.:
> Given a table called "icone" with the following primary key: "CONSTRAINT
> icone_PK PRIMARY KEY(seticone,idazione)".
> "CONSTRAINT BOTTONE_FK3 foreign key(seticone,idazione) references icone on
> delete cascade"
> and
> "CONSTRAINT BOTTONE_FK3 foreign key(idazione,seticone) references icone on
> delete cascade"
> should be the same thing (IMHO) but it's not the same according to Derby.
> The latter syntax is apparently broken and when inserting a new row, in the
> table that has such constraint, there is an error because Derby swaps the two
> attributes that make up the composite key and thus the FK constraint cannot
> be fulfilled.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
