<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/15/2005 02:49:09 PM:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 20:08:32 +0300,
>> Andrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > So I'll think still continuing to use null as unrestricted department
>> > access.
>> >
>> > Is it reasonable to create unique constraint using
>> >
>> > CREATE UNIQUE INDEX user_id_permission_id_department_id_unique_idx
>> > ON permission (user_id, permission_id, COALESCE(department_id,'ALL'))
>>
>> If you are going to do this a partial index is a better way to go.
>> Something like:
>> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX user_id_permission_id_null ON permission
>> WHERE department_id IS NULL;
>>
>> However either of these let you insert and entry for "ALL" while also
>> having entries for individual departments.
>
> That's a lot of overhead for doing something very simple, like defining a
> department key that means ALL and a row in the foreign table for it to
> point to. Maintaining indices is a nontrivial performance trade-off.
Yes, adding department ALL may be simpler solution.
However, I reference department table from many other tables. In those other
tables, department ALL is NOT ALLOWED.
If I add ALL to department table, I must restrict all other tables of having
ALL department. This is a big work and cannot be done nicely in Postgres.
So I need to allow specify ALL department in privilege table without
changing department table.
Andrus.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
