Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Grzegorz Szpetkowski
> <gszpetkowski@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
