On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 15:33, Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> wrote:
> Also, should the join be a left join, which would therefore return a NULL > when there is no matching record? Or could we have a variation such as ->? > to give a left join (NULL when no matching record) with -> using an inner > join (record is not included in result when no matching record). > > > Interesting idea, but I think we can keep it simple, and still support the > case you mention: > > If we only have -> and you want to exclude records where the column is > NULL (i.e. INNER JOIN), > I think we should just use the WHERE clause and filter on such condition. > Just to be clear, it will always be a left join? Agreed that getting the inner join behaviour can be done in the WHERE clause. I think this is a case where simple is good. As long as the left join case is supported I'm happy. > Thanks for the encouraging words. I have exactly the same experience > myself and share your view. > > I look forward to continued discussion on this matter. > I had another idea: maybe the default name of a foreign key constraint to a primary key should simply be the name of the target table? That is, if I say: FOREIGN KEY (...) REFERENCES t ... then unless the table name t is already in use as a constraint name, it will be used as the constraint name. It would be nice not to have to keep repeating, like this: CONSTRAINT t FOREIGN KEY (...) REFERENCES t
