Stephan Szabo wrote:
> Actually, it would be:
> * Change foreign key constraint for array -> element to mean element
> in array,
> since the constraints seem to work on arrays (make two integer
> arrays and reference them and it seems to work in my two minute test).
>
> The question is whether or not we want to extend the spec in this way.
> It would probably be easy to do, but it's definately an extension, since
> the spec says that the two things should be equal, and I don't generally
> think of element in array as equality. And, what do we do if neither
> the in operator nor equals is defined between array and element?
Maybe the syntax should be extended to support this concept. Thus
instead of having....
CREATE TABLE table2 ( pkey integer NOT NULL, arvar integer[],PRIMARY KEY
(pkey),FOREIGNKEY (arvar) REFERENCES table1(fld1)
);
We instead have....
CREATE TABLE table2 ( pkey integer NOT NULL, arvar integer[],PRIMARY KEY
(pkey),FOREIGNKEY (arvar) REFERENCES table1(fld1[])
);
The extra [] meaning that it references a member of fld1, but we don't
know which. That would leave strict equality intact, but still provide
this very useful extension.
