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

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