On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:36:15AM +0100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote: > I would agree with what Tom is saying here, given that SQL specs do not > say anything about this feature. We could leave standard REFERENCES > keyword handling the array value as it is now. If a user wants to take > advantage of in-array referential integrity, we could implement the > special keyword "ARRAY REFERENCES" as Tom proposes (or a similar > keyword).
No objection to that. > --------------- --------- --------- > | ON | ON | > Action | DELETE | UPDATE | > --------------- --------- --------- > CASCADE | Row | Element | > SET NULL | Row | Row | > ARRAY CASCADE | Element | Element | > ARRAY SET NULL | Element | Element | > SET DEFAULT | Error | Error | > NO ACTION | - | - | > RESTRICT | - | - | > --------------- --------- --------- I like this. > CASCADE and ARRAY CASCADE are > synonyms, as they would work in individual elements (which is the action > that makes more sense anyway). What about making ON UPDATE CASCADE an error? That way, we can say that ARRAY <action> always applies to array elements, and plain <action> always applies to entire rows. SET DEFAULT should now be fine to allow. It's ARRAY SET DEFAULT, in your new terminology, that wouldn't make sense. Thanks, nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
