Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes:
> Thanks, I'll await pushing and backpatching if Tom who committed it has
> insights into whether it was missed or if it indeed serves a purpose.
Hey, I just pushed that for somebody else, I don't claim authorship ;-)
It seems clear that the example intends to show a star-schema database
where the fact table refers to various dimension tables. But it's
incomplete --- there's no foreign-key constraint on time_key, and
even less infrastructure for product_key or store_key. I don't
have the cited book either, so I don't know how complete the original
example was. Perhaps the bit in the trigger function about forbidding
updates to time_key has something to do with that model.
Anyway, I don't see any reason to object to this patch. The extra
table isn't adding much. My only thought is would it make sense to
change time_key to be a timestamp or timestamptz value?
regards, tom lane
