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

From: Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>
To: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Correct implementation of 1:n relationship with n>0?
Date: 2013-05-08 07:04:34
Message-ID: 5661746.f8cZtjsOM5@smadev.internal.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

On Ôñé 30 Áðñ 2013 20:25:42 Wolfgang Keller wrote:
> > (there is nothing wrong in getting your hands dirty with pl/pgsql btw)
>
> The point is that I would have expected that problem to be solved
> within the past four decades since relational databases have been
> invented. Or at least in the past two decades since PostgreSQL has been
> developed.
>

Then what about n>1, n>2, n>k where k an arbitrarily large positive integer?
isn't it the same problem class actually?

Is there any serious database vendor who provides out of the box support for 1:n, n>0 ?
Or is it an "unusual" user requirement in the first place.
Ever thought why not so many people have asked for this?

Anyway, IMHO, the need for more programming/programmers increases with the years,
engineering becomes more complex, you can't expect serious contgrol in anything without
getting under the hood.

> >;->
>
> After all, this should be really an ultra-classic-standard FAQ item.
>
> I'm definitely not the first database user in the world who needs to
> have a 1:n relationship with n>0 and integrity enforced by the
> database.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
-
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Albe Laurenz 2013-05-08 07:47:40 Re: [SQL] Encrypting PGBouncer to Postgres DB connections
Previous Message Bhanu Murthy 2013-05-07 17:07:08 Re: [SQL] Encrypting PGBouncer to Postgres DB connections