Message-ID: <a9f4021f4a762a4d0cfaed2477f53c6e772c876a.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Foreign Keys being able to reference same table not spelled out
 in documentation
From: maweki@gmail.com
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Tom Lane
	 <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Pg Docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 08:07:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKFQuwZTke7+HUn4YUGqu2+gAPi4Cy18TXMrg_Z5nADkxfPNMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <161969805833.690.13680986983883602407@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
	 <3084939.1619717579@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	 <CAKFQuwZTke7+HUn4YUGqu2+gAPi4Cy18TXMrg_Z5nADkxfPNMw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.0 (3.40.0-1.fc34) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a9f4021f4a762a4d0cfaed2477f53c6e772c876a.camel%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Note that it is in general not necessary for the referencing column to
be NULLABLE. If you defer the constraint checking, you can insert a
cyclic structure. Of course, it's no longer a tree then.

The tutorial-ness of the documentation was already pointed out and I
don't think it needs to be said there. We just would want to not imply
this (nullable) would be necessary.

Documentation-wise I liked to MariaDB approach very much, where the two
tables were named "parent table" and "child table" and at some point
you note that it is allowed for a table to be both. But this would be a
lot more invasive.

All the Best
Mario Wenzel


Am Mittwoch, dem 05.05.2021 um 21:17 -0700 schrieb David G. Johnston:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:33 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I'm inclined to propose adding an example a little further down, as
> > per the attached draft patch.  This wouldn't help people who stop
> > reading after the section's first sentence, but we can't cover
> > everything in the first sentence.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> Given the tutorial nature of this section I agree with the approach.
> 
> I did a read through of the patch and I like it; though I suggest
> changing "but non-NULL" to "while non-NULL".
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> David J.
>