From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Ciprian Popovici <ciprian(at)zuavra(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multiple foreign keys on same field |
Date: | 2004-12-14 05:32:46 |
Message-ID: | 20041214053246.GB8082@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:06:24 +0200,
Ciprian Popovici <ciprian(at)zuavra(dot)net> wrote:
> I'm in a situation where it would be useful to bind a field in a table via
> foreign keys to N other tables simultaneously. The table holds a common
> type of info which all those other tables use. The many tables refer to the
> common table by keeping references to its serial field.
>
> By doing this, I could ensure that when a row in any of the many tables is
> deleted or updated, the effect travels to the common table.
>
> So far, I've been successful in defining more than one foreign key on the
> same field in the lone table, tied to fields in different tables. (I half
> expected it not to work though).
>
> However, it seems that inserting values in the commons table is a
> showstopper: it expects that field value to exists not in only one, but in
> ALL bound tables simultaneously.
Are you sure you don't really want the foreign key relation to go in the
other direction?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-12-14 05:40:54 | Re: Corrupt RTREE index |
Previous Message | Alex | 2004-12-14 02:37:40 | Help needed with QueryPlan |