Hello folks,
We are in the process of creating an optimized postgres adapter. While
analyzing the slide's DB schema we found out that there are two tables that
seem to be redundant:
* the binding table:
CREATE TABLE BINDING (
URI_ID integer NOT NULL REFERENCES
URI(URI_ID),
NAME text NOT NULL,
CHILD_UURI_ID integer NOT NULL REFERENCES
URI(URI_ID),
PRIMARY KEY (URI_ID, NAME, CHILD_UURI_ID)
);
* the parent_binding table:
CREATE TABLE PARENT_BINDING (
URI_ID integer NOT NULL REFERENCES URI
(URI_ID),
NAME text NOT NULL,
PARENT_UURI_ID integer NOT NULL REFERENCES URI
(URI_ID),
PRIMARY KEY (URI_ID, NAME, PARENT_UURI_ID)
);
The name binding suggests that it may represent the several binds
(shortcuts) that a resource may be linked to. But it can also mean the
resource's children in case of a collection. If the second is true, the
table parent_binding suggests being the reference to the resource's parent
collection.
Also, the table links:
CREATE TABLE LINKS (
URI_ID integer NOT NULL REFERENCES URI
(URI_ID),
LINK_TO_ID integer NOT NULL REFERENCES URI
(URI_ID),
UNIQUE (URI_ID, LINK_TO_ID)
);
Seems to give a hint that this may be the table where bindings (shortcuts)
of a resource are stored. When I exam it, the table is empty, no data
stored, witch may be expected since the postgres adapter is not prepared to
support the dav binding spec.
Can anyone give me some insight?
Many thanks,
Miguel Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
