While teaching a database basics course, a student asked about Foreign Keys whose data type does not match the data type of the thing (e.g. Primary Key) they are referencing.

For example, all numbers that can be stored in an INTEGER column can be expressed as TEXT, and so a TEXT column's data may be used to reference data in an INTEGER column, as long as the appropriate typecasts/conversions are applied.

We use PostgreSQL in teaching (because of its excellent documentation, among other things), so we went and had a look. Lo and behold, the "simplified" chapter about Foreign Keys told us:

Of course, the number and type of the constrained columns need to match the number and type of the referenced columns.

Further research in the "feature complete" section about CREATE TABLE did not explicitly mention data types, though. This part only talks about values.

We tried various combinations of data types, some more convincing (like the INTEGER-TEXT variant from above) than others. The DBMS was not convinced and replied with 42804: incompatible types.

So far, so good. Imagine our utter astonishment when we found out that PostgreSQLs various Integer-types in fact do work.

They even take the sign correctly into account, which means they are not just matching up bits.

Of course there is a direction this should work in: Having an INTEGER column that is referenced by a BIGINT column always works, since everything that fits into the referenced column also fits into the referencing column.

Surprisingly, PostgreSQL allows the other direction (with INTEGER and SMALLINT in this example):

CREATE TABLE this_should_not_work
    data                    TEXT

CREATE TABLE this_should_not_work_detail
    detail_data                TEXT,
  -- This Foreign Key references a column of a different type, which should not be possible
    fk_this_should_not_work_id SMALLINT REFERENCES this_should_not_work (this_should_not_work_id)

Here is an executable version of the above problem: db-fiddle

The db-fiddle also has sequence options and INSERT-Statements that trigger a failure on the second insertion.

Note that the Documentation and the db-fiddle linked above is for PostgreSQL 13, but the problem(?) can be reproduced on PostgreSQL 14 as well.

I am aware that foreign key type mismatch is a database design problem. The question is, why does PostgreSQL point out the obvious cases (INTEGER-TEXT), but not the more subtle ones (INTEGER-SMALLINT)?

PS: A lot of havok can be caused when this is abused in combination with ON UPDATE CASCADE, since the update on the referenced table fails because of the data not fitting into the referencing table - this makes for a rather "creative" error message.

  • I was surprised as well when I found out, that even integer to numeric works.
    – user1822
    Commented Feb 15, 2022 at 8:48
  • Which PostgreSQL version were you using? I tried 13.2, 13.6 and 14.2 (all on a Windows box), and neither were working... Commented Feb 15, 2022 at 9:03
  • I think it was with 10, but it still works with 14: dbfiddle.uk/… note: the other direction numeric referencing bigint does not work though
    – user1822
    Commented Feb 15, 2022 at 9:14
  • Ah, I got the direction mixed up - and I hadn't tried a NUMERIC being referenced by an INTEGER (which indeed works like you wrote), only the other way 'round. When you try to insert NUMERIC values with decimal digits into that INTEGER foreign key column, the values are rounded to the nearest INTEGER, by the way. This is the regular PostgreSQL behavior, but it feels really bad with keys... Commented Feb 15, 2022 at 10:49

2 Answers 2


Use the source, Luke!

In ATAddForeignKeyConstraint in src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c, we find the truth about the requirements:

         * There had better be a primary equality operator for the index.
         * We'll use it for PK = PK comparisons.
        ppeqop = get_opfamily_member(opfamily, opcintype, opcintype,

        if (!OidIsValid(ppeqop))
            elog(ERROR, "missing operator %d(%u,%u) in opfamily %u",
                 eqstrategy, opcintype, opcintype, opfamily);

So, the unique index on the target type has to support equality comparisons.

         * Are there equality operators that take exactly the FK type? Assume
         * we should look through any domain here.
        fktyped = getBaseType(fktype);

        pfeqop = get_opfamily_member(opfamily, opcintype, fktyped,
        if (OidIsValid(pfeqop))
            pfeqop_right = fktyped;
            ffeqop = get_opfamily_member(opfamily, fktyped, fktyped,
            /* keep compiler quiet */
            pfeqop_right = InvalidOid;
            ffeqop = InvalidOid;

If there is an equality operator between the data types of the referencing column and the referenced column that is supported by the target index, we are good.

        if (!(OidIsValid(pfeqop) && OidIsValid(ffeqop)))
             * Otherwise, look for an implicit cast from the FK type to the
             * opcintype, and if found, use the primary equality operator.
             * This is a bit tricky because opcintype might be a polymorphic
             * type such as ANYARRAY or ANYENUM; so what we have to test is
             * whether the two actual column types can be concurrently cast to
             * that type.  (Otherwise, we'd fail to reject combinations such
             * as int[] and point[].)
            Oid         input_typeids[2];
            Oid         target_typeids[2];

            input_typeids[0] = pktype;
            input_typeids[1] = fktype;
            target_typeids[0] = opcintype;
            target_typeids[1] = opcintype;
            if (can_coerce_type(2, input_typeids, target_typeids,
                pfeqop = ffeqop = ppeqop;
                pfeqop_right = opcintype;

Otherwise, there must be an implicit cast from the type of the referencing column to the referenced column.

        if (!(OidIsValid(pfeqop) && OidIsValid(ffeqop)))
                     errmsg("foreign key constraint \"%s\" cannot be implemented",
                     errdetail("Key columns \"%s\" and \"%s\" "
                               "are of incompatible types: %s and %s.",
                               strVal(list_nth(fkconstraint->fk_attrs, i)),
                               strVal(list_nth(fkconstraint->pk_attrs, i)),

If neither is true error out.

So you can have foreign keys from integer to smallint because there exists an equality operator between these types that belongs to the index's operator family:

\do =
                                              List of operators
   Schema   │ Name │        Left arg type        │       Right arg type        │ Result type │  Description  
 pg_catalog │ =    │ integer                     │ smallint                    │ boolean     │ equal
(63 rows)

However, there is no implicit cast between text and integer, so you cannot have foreign key references between these types.

                                         List of casts
         Source type         │         Target type         │      Function      │   Implicit?   
 integer                     │ bigint                      │ int8               │ yes
 integer                     │ bit                         │ bit                │ no
 integer                     │ boolean                     │ bool               │ no
 integer                     │ "char"                      │ char               │ no
 integer                     │ double precision            │ float8             │ yes
 integer                     │ money                       │ money              │ in assignment
 integer                     │ numeric                     │ numeric            │ yes
 integer                     │ oid                         │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ real                        │ float4             │ yes
 integer                     │ regclass                    │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regcollation                │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regconfig                   │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regdictionary               │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regnamespace                │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regoper                     │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regoperator                 │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regproc                     │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regprocedure                │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regrole                     │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ regtype                     │ (binary coercible) │ yes
 integer                     │ smallint                    │ int2               │ in assignment

I have no idea about the ideas behind the implementation, so I'll just toss in some food for thought. I don't see a problem with:


( tid SMALLINT REFERENCES t (tid) );

It may be valid reasons for u.tid to be a subset of t.tid. One can compare with:

( tid INT REFERENCES t (tid)
,     CHECK (tid BETWEEN 0 and 100);

For the other way around I would say that it makes no sense:


( tid INT REFERENCES t (tid) );

u.tid can never live outside of SMALLINT, so I don't see any point in allowing it.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.