Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1w9SQh-001S0j-0m
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org;
	Sun, 05 Apr 2026 18:42:39 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1w9SQe-004MGt-2C
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org;
	Sun, 05 Apr 2026 18:42:37 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1w9SQe-004MGk-1I
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org;
	Sun, 05 Apr 2026 18:42:36 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.98.2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1w9SQY-00000000lfs-44tQ
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org;
	Sun, 05 Apr 2026 18:42:36 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 635IgQk8841584;
	Sun, 5 Apr 2026 14:42:26 -0400
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: <3819788.1775241322@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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>
 <3819788.1775241322@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:35:22 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <841582.1775414546.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 14:42:26 -0400
Message-ID: <841583.1775414546@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/841583.1775414546%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Apropos of the question of how much rearrangement functionality the
SQL spec actually asks for, I was interested to come across this entry
in SQL:2021's Table 43 — Feature taxonomy and definition for mandatory
features:

Feature ID	Feature Name	Feature Description

F311-01		CREATE SCHEMA	— Subclause 11.1, “<schema definition>”:
				Support for circular references in that <refer-
				ential constraint definition>s in two different
				<table definition>s may reference columns in
				the other table

We already claim support for F311-01 in sql_features.txt, but based
on this entry I'd have to say that's a lie.  However, (a) the current
patchset fixes that, and (b) this seems like good evidence in support
of the idea that circular foreign keys are the only aspect of the
business that anyone cares about.

			regards, tom lane