| From: | Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Hunter <hunteke(at)earlham(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Postgres General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: many to one of many modeling question |
| Date: | 2008-01-11 22:39:54 |
| Message-ID: | 193563.21773.qm@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
--- On Fri, 1/11/08, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> > One method
> > that has been proposed is to have a third table which
> stores to what object
> > type a comment belongs, but I don't like this
> because the foreign key
> > relationships then wouldn't be maintained by the
> database. The only way
> > that I'm able to think of at the moment is
> multiple columns.
Actually, I think if you notice the example I posted previously, I made both the Unique ID column and object type column a composite primary key.
The other tables referenced this composite primary key as foreign keys using referential integrity ON UPDATE CASCADE. This means that they database ~would~ maintain/enforce the object-type portion of the foreign key automatically for you.
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Wilson | 2008-01-11 23:51:08 | ECPG problem with 8.3 |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2008-01-11 22:11:51 | Re: many to one of many modeling question |