From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
cc: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: CREATE SCHEMA ... CREATE DOMAIN support
In-reply-to: 
 <CACJufxG7okkEs+kjCxR0b=6HnzBmMjkUszndT7puTQq6ADXwtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALdSSPh4jUSDsWu3K58hjO60wnTRR0DuO4CKRcwa8EVuOSfXxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxG+mrh2O9RS0gX43gU6sv+CMY847eMjMQpe8t4ou-2ryg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxFUdgqDiK9B+VNtnAwZOj=O3NqdLtXO_OrOwE5XPdCpBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPggNNvcad69dhUceZ_gPuEYnKNNd=WJ_WnP=YDmh=iwmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1898722.1732732780@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CALdSSPhckRXW+KEvdsUmkQ-ErbrP_vPNjGwgXNdpXDb8xnLEbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2007224.1732773174@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CALdSSPgftbtV=UyeK_XcLit_mKQZr+g8pCxA0kLLxDi0kKwEGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxH5TvkQiMOJ9dpDrDbRtyCa-yu+QOmYGt4WGGYVrN+P8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1075425.1732993688@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <345c20e5-a6d7-477a-9598-982661bb5740@eisentraut.org>
 <1990479.1733256458@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CALdSSPi1eFMhAY6Xc7ZShnU0m5YrswOFLyDKrFzLjYd7wefzQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <499425.1733936916@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CACJufxF28Vk27JhJ9u8tq10BoHLg=T9=wJ8zqTy_ajM4=Czunw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPjH3Ag_6v=Q+mnhJocaYor0eGYOYkZWDG8w2rXRVioTXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxGOtXuJD3VLOMUQr08Zt3=8HjH0KYk2NivYPuMbHG2JQg@mail.g!
 mail.com> <685422.1756848241@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CACJufxG7okkEs+kjCxR0b=6HnzBmMjkUszndT7puTQq6ADXwtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:29:13 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3819787.1775241322.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:35:22 -0400
Message-ID: <3819788.1775241322@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3819788.1775241322%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote [ many months ago now ]:
>> I think this is still kind of blocked, because it's not clear to me
>> whether we have consensus about it being okay to do 0001.
>> 
>> Re-reading the thread, the only real use-case for re-ordering that
>> anyone proposed is that foreign key references should be able to be
>> forward references to tables created later in the same CREATE SCHEMA.
>> I concede first that this is a somewhat-plausible use-case and
>> second that it is pretty clearly required by spec.  The fact remains
>> however that we have never supported that in two dozen years, and
>> the number of complaints about the omission could be counted without
>> running out of thumbs.  So, how about the following plan of action?
>> 
>> 1. Rip out subcommand re-ordering as currently implemented, and do the
>> subcommands in the given order.
>> 
>> 2. When a CREATE TABLE subcommand includes a FOREIGN KEY clause,
>> transform that clause into ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY, and push
>> it to the back of the CREATE SCHEMA's to-do list.

Nobody has complained about this approach since September, so unless
there's a complaint PDQ, I'm going to take silence as consent and
move forward with reviewing/applying Jian's patchset.

			regards, tom lane