From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Anyone working on pg_dump dependency ordering? |
Date: | 2003-11-22 22:20:48 |
Message-ID: | 1069539647.16912.124.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 16:53, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> >You're going to potentially have the constraints scattered in any case due
> >to circular dependency chains. I'd think that having all the constraints
> >in one place would be easier than trying to go through the list of tables
> >that might be in a circular chain in order to find the constraints.
> >
> >
> I still disagree. cyclic dependencies should be avoided anyhow. You'll
> get an awful lot of trouble loading data in such a case. Some database
> systems refuse to create such stuff right away (mssql).
CREATE TABLE a (col integer primary key);
CREATE TABLE b (col integer primary key);
ALTER TABLE a ADD FOREIGN KEY (col) REFERENCES b INITIALLY DEFERRED;
ALTER TABLE b ADD FOREIGN KEY (col) REFERENCES a;
How does MSSQL deal with the above?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2003-11-22 22:24:08 | Re: Sponsoring enterprise features |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-11-22 21:53:59 | Re: Anyone working on pg_dump dependency ordering? |