Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Grzegorz Szpetkowski > <gszpetkow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "NOTE 30 ? If MATCH FULL or MATCH PARTIAL is specified for a > > referential constraint and if the referencing table has only one > > column specified in <referential constraint definition> for that > > referential constraint, or if the referencing table has more than one > > specified column for that <referential constraint definition>, but > > none of those columns is nullable, then the effect is the same as if > > no > > <match type> were specified." > > > > I found that in SQL:2003 draft, so in above case MATCH FULL is > > syntactically ok, but rather confusing and effectively do nothing > > (maybe just impression purpose). > > I guess we could remove it, but I don't think it's really doing any harm.
I find the MATCH FULL makes the example less real-world accurate, so I removed the specification from the example. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
