Correct implementation of 1:n relationship with n>0?

From: Wolfgang Keller <feliphil(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Correct implementation of 1:n relationship with n>0?
Date: 2013-04-30 14:39:05
Message-ID: 20130430163905.77d43412c0176c3d9ebd8d90@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

It hit me today that a 1:n relationship can't be implemented just by a
single foreign key constraint if n>0. I must have been sleeping very
deeply not to notice this.

E.g. if there is a table "list" and another table "list_item" and the
relationship can be described as "every list has at least one
list_item" (and every list_item can only be part of one list, but
this is trivial).

A "correct" solution would require (at least?):

1. A foreign key pointing from each list_item to its list

2. Another foreign key pointing from each list to one of its list_item.
But this must be a list_item that itself points to the same list, so
just a simple foreign key constraint doesn't do it.

3. When a list has more than one list_item, and you want to delete the
list_item that its list points to, you have to "re-point" the foreign
key constraint on the list first. Do I need to use stored proceures
then for all insert, update, delete actions?

(4. Anything else that I've not seen?)

Is there a "straight" (and tested) solution for this in PostgreSQL, that
someone has already implemented and that can be re-used?

No, I definitely don't want to get into programming PL/PgSQL myself.
especially if the solution has to warrant data integrity under all
circumstances. Such as concurrent update, insert, delete etc.

TIA,

Sincerely,

Wolfgang

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Achilleas Mantzios 2013-04-30 15:12:05 Re: Correct implementation of 1:n relationship with n>0?
Previous Message Jasen Betts 2013-04-27 06:34:45 Re: execute