From: | Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb(at)eskimo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> |
Cc: | "kay-uwe(dot)genz" <kug1977(at)web(dot)de>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE with REFERENCE |
Date: | 2003-07-28 20:55:26 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSU.4.44.0307281353580.8808-100000@eskimo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> >Why not just drop the "references" clause? I mean, the point of having
> >transactions is to guarantee integrity within a transaction, if you're not
> >going to have that, why even bother with the clause?
> >
> Quite the opposite - the point is to guaratee the integrity *outside*
> the transaction.
That's actually what I was saying. Within a single transaction rather
than across multiple transactions. If you have to go across multiple
transactions, there's no real point in having integrity constraints.
> >Most of my databases don't even user "references", just because I like the
> >flexibility, and I have multitable keys (keys that can refer to rows from
> >multiple tables).
> >
> >
> Not much to brag about :-)
Do you know of a better way to handle multitable references?
Jon
>
> Dima
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco J Reyes | 2003-07-28 20:59:07 | Re: comparing database schema's |
Previous Message | Terence Chang | 2003-07-28 20:38:34 | Clone a database to other machine |