| From: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Wolfgang Keller <feliphil(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql novice forum <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: *Proper* solution for 1..* relationship? |
| Date: | 2013-05-01 15:37:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAK3UJREh6OoBF4fC5N6KEMqO3biOJ1An-B33GcP2_L-nO9T+cw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Wolfgang Keller <feliphil(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> The most straightforward way I know to enforce this is to check
>> that at least one child exists in a DEFERRED trigger on the the
>> parent. You still need to worry about concurrency issues.
>
> Imho it's absurd that I have to do this ("worry about concurrency
> issues") myself, how long - more than fourty years after the invention
> of relational databases?
You're not the first one to wish for something like this, and the SQL
standard actually has the CREATE ASSERTION syntax which I believe
would be able cover your use-case. Unfortunately, almost no databases
support this feature :-(
Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2013-05-01 20:16:15 | Re: *Proper* solution for 1..* relationship? |
| Previous Message | David Johnston | 2013-04-30 13:13:52 | Re: *Proper* solution for 1..* relationship? |