rihad wrote:
Due to lack of support for partial (conditional) multi-column foreign
keys in 8.3, can before-triggers be used to implement them in terms of
data consistency and speed?
Let me clarify the question in semi-pseudo-SQL:
table foo {
bar_id int not null;
baz_id int not null;
rihad ri...@mail.ru writes:
I want the effects of the above foo.key in every sense, but only for
entries having foo.flag=true. So I think I'll write before-statement
triggers to do just that instead of the key. But is data consistency
still guaranteed as the foreign key in foo would
Hello,
Due to lack of support for partial (conditional) multi-column foreign
keys in 8.3, can before-triggers be used to implement them in terms of
data consistency and speed?
Thanks.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:21:33PM -0500, Eric E wrote:
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain null
values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
I did think about that,
Hi all,
In my database application, I've repeatedly encountered a particular
issue, and I'm not sure I'm addressing it well, so I'd like suggestions
on how to deal with it. The problem is that I need something like a
partial foreign key - a foreign key where, based on field1, in some rows
On 11/17/05, Eric E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
In my database application, I've repeatedly encountered a particular
issue, and I'm not sure I'm addressing it well, so I'd like suggestions
on how to deal with it. The problem is that I need something like a
partial foreign key - a
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
I did think about that, but I disliked the idea of two fields of nulls for
every one
Eric E wrote:
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain
null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
I did think about that, but I disliked the idea of two fields of nulls
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 13:36, Eric E wrote:
Eric E wrote:
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain
null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
I did think about
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 13:36, Eric E wrote:
Eric E wrote:
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain
null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has
On 11/17/05, Eric E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the best way to do this? My immediate reaction is that I want a
partial foreign key, but perhaps this is not a good way to go about such
a design.
Normally I just have multiple columns with all but one NULL.
Alternatively you can
11 matches
Mail list logo
