Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> schrieb am Mo., 27. Dez. 2021, 16:21:
> >On Mon, Dec 27, 2021, at 15:48, Isaac Morland wrote: > >I thought the proposal was to give the FK constraint name. > >However, if the idea now is to allow leaving that out also if there > >is only one FK, then that's also OK as long as people understand it can > break in the same way NATURAL JOIN can break > >when columns are added later. For that matter, a join mentioning column > names can break if the columns are changed. But > >breakage where the query no longer compiles are better than ones where it > suddenly means something very different so > >overall I wouldn't worry about this too much. > > Yes, my proposal was indeed to give the FK constraint name. > I just commented on Corey's different proposal that instead specified FK > columns. > I agree with your reasoning regarding the trade-offs and problems with > such a proposal. > > I still see more benefits in using the FK constraint name though. > > I have made some new progress on the idea since last proposal: > > SYNTAX > > join_type JOIN KEY referencing_alias.fk_name [ [ AS ] alias ] > > join_type table_name [ [ AS ] alias ] KEY fk_name REF referenced_alias > > EXAMPLE > > FROM permission p > LEFT JOIN KEY p.role r > LEFT JOIN team_role tr KEY role REF r > LEFT JOIN KEY tr.team t > LEFT JOIN user_role ur KEY role REF r > LEFT JOIN KEY ur.user u > WHERE p.id = 1; > Ref = in and to, great > > Foreign key constraint names have been given the same names as the > referenced tables. > > Thoughts? > > /Joel >
