From: | David <wizzardx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Database design: Storing app defaults |
Date: | 2008-06-18 12:03:05 |
Message-ID: | 18c1e6480806180503l3e42747bx3e33dcffad8fb7b1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi list.
If you have a table like this:
table1
- id
- field1
- field2
- field3
table2
- id
- table1_id
- field1
- field2
- field3
table1 & table2 are setup as 1-to-many.
If I want to start providing user-customizable defaults to the
database (ie, we don't want apps to update database schema), is it ok
database design to add a table2 record, with a NULL table1_id field?
In other words, if table1 has no matching table2 record, then the app
will use the table2 record with a NULL table1_id field to get
defaults.
This looks messy however. Is there a better way to do it?
A few other ways I can think of:
1) Have an extra table1 record (with string fields containing
'DEFAULT'), against which the extra table2 record is linked.
2) Have a new table, just for defaults, like this:
table2_defaults
- field1
- field2
- field3
Which is the cleanest way? Is there another method I should use instead?
David.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David | 2008-06-18 12:04:14 | Database design: Backwards-compatible field addition |
Previous Message | David | 2008-06-18 12:01:02 | Re: Database design questions |