Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158C21337DBE
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  9 May 2011 15:54:26 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 11409-06 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  9 May 2011 18:54:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.106])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7084F1337C6E
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Mon,  9 May 2011 15:13:14 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com (mail-iw0-f174.google.com
	[209.85.214.174]) by mx1.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3A63263082
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Mon,  9 May 2011 18:13:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iwn34 with SMTP id 34so4539544iwn.19
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Mon, 09 May 2011 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=ItD+eJ63cWx2O+XtKPIgyYp7Q/3V5mtncqheWb9bKUU=;
	b=cdASDwXLJDI9O1Y4w6J2QUPVCto6yh6QBnu3qhVpzSBlBBgVFcn4UuNz1NwB410bER
	K1vsf8+W6ny68Y2kPCZQrmjDZKsLRtXM+fzGPvrSBEszxaMQFq4lTiNJZF4f/UhhtA3B
	cYhI0hCaadjtpODub0DzoKYCess8hzZy02tZA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=p8larQMjZ6Sg1/KagPpM12x9UJu3Sk/R1GnBTMHROOeLF2g7GLx9gDPFXGjeZ2iEfj
	DCDKlffdWvjwtDuoCmvG25T49SJKj37BnsvQZVycTkyKKaRKYOLzfOPphonI2UNbbbps
	rIrBM33FV84r4C9qwDEpMnBylKZbUgiwQk4+s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.224.198 with SMTP id ip6mr4630461icb.28.1304964733134; Mon,
	09 May 2011 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.12.131 with HTTP; Mon, 9 May 2011 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikx0iKbcU4pPAMDPXcL1c4fX6nWMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikx0iKbcU4pPAMDPXcL1c4fX6nWMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:12:13 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=wObY6Wnn3PLoCezT5EZdjeubROw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE doc small thing
From: Grzegorz Szpetkowski <gszpetkowski@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.888 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
	RFC_ABUSE_POST=0.001, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL=0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201105/38
X-Sequence-Number: 6713

"NOTE 30 =97 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).

Regards,
G. Sz.

2011/5/9 Grzegorz Szpetkowski <gszpetkowski@gmail.com>:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-altertable.html
>
> "To add a foreign key constraint to a table:
>
> ALTER TABLE distributors ADD CONSTRAINT distfk FOREIGN KEY (address)
> REFERENCES addresses (address) MATCH FULL;"
>
> This looks confusing to me. Is "MATCH FULL" works with non-composite
> (one adress column) foreign keys at all ?
>
> Regards,
> G. Sz.
>