| From: | "Leif B(dot) Kristensen" <leif(at)solumslekt(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Need help with 'unique parents' constraint |
| Date: | 2005-09-12 18:02:34 |
| Message-ID: | 200509122002.34864.leif@solumslekt.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Sunday 11 September 2005 16:04, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Not just old-fashioned, it's the biological law! (among homo sapiens
> anyway). I'd approach this with a trigger, as you can do complex
> checks and get back nice customized error messages. A sample script
> follows. Hard to tell without seeing your whole schema, but I see no
> need for a relation_id primary key if you already have a unique
> constraint on child_fk and parent_fk, so I made those into the
> primary key for the relations table:
Thank you for an excellent answer. I think I will have to study your
code for a while. But is it such a bad idea to have a separate column
for the primary key here? I see that there are two schools on this,
with diametrically opposed views. For my own part, I feel that it at
least doesn't hurt to have a surrogate key. Secondly, a single key
value is easier to reference from another table than a composite key.
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen
http://solumslekt.org/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-09-12 23:03:23 | Re: refer a column as a varible name? |
| Previous Message | Wei | 2005-09-12 18:01:08 | How do I convert an integet to a timestamp? |