On 10/22/12 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Well, I think if that's the best we can do, you original proposal of
>> ditching the column constraint syntax altogether might be for the
>> best. I wasn't too excited about that before, but I think having two
>> different syntaxes is going to be even worse. In some ways, it's
>> actually sort of sensible, because the referring side isn't really the
>> column itself; it's some value extracted therefrom. You can imagine
>> other variants of that as well, such as the recently-suggested
>
>> FOREIGN KEY ((somecol).member_name) REFERENCES othertab (doohicky)
>
>> Now, what would the column-constraint version of that look like? Is
>> it even sensible to think that there SHOULD be a column-constraint
>> version of that? I'm not convinced it is sensible, so maybe decreeing
>> that the table constraint version must be used to handle all
>> non-trivial cases is more sensible than I initially thought.
>
> I could easily go with that ...
I'm getting around to that conclusion as well.
