Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAC3B5DCE9
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:24:59 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 43333-06 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:24:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from momjian.us (momjian.us [70.90.9.53])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9EEB5DC25
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:24:52 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (from bruce@localhost) by momjian.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id
 p8ADOpr29212;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:24:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <201109101324.p8ADOpr29212@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE doc small thing
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim8zRxa0=DRSQZ26Fqd2SmOdmP-AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Grzegorz Szpetkowski <gszpetkowski@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL124 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.404 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.504
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201109/37
X-Sequence-Number: 6958

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. +