Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Please reply to list also. > Ccing list. > On 11/22/19 11:36 PM, aleksey ksenzov wrote: >> While I understand I can do everything with triggers/functions, for me >> it looks like a good idea to have possibility to use constants in >> constraints, so it would be very nice if postgres community could add >> this functionality in the nearest releases. It seems quite unlikely to me that we'd add such a thing. It'd be a weird wart on the foreign-key feature. Notable problems: * How would it interact with referential actions, notably ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON UPDATE/DELETE SET NULL, ON UPDATE/DELETE SET DEFAULT? I guess you could disallow those options for such a foreign key, but anytime you have a feature that's that non-orthogonal with existing ones, you have to ask yourself if you've designed it right. * Such FKs couldn't be displayed in the information_schema views, at least not without violating the letter and spirit of the SQL spec. We already have some cases of constraints that can't be shown in information_schema, but that's not the sort of wart I want more of. BTW, it seems to me that you can get the same behavior with existing features: make a regular multicolumn foreign key constraint, and then add a CHECK constraint restricting what value one of the referencing columns can have. Yeah, this requires useless storage of a column that will only ever have one value. I think that's an okay limitation for a niche use-case. It also generalizes more easily to cases where there's more than exactly one allowed value for a referencing column. regards, tom lane
