Hi Dirk, On 3/11/08, Dirk Jagdmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I vote against duplicating site_group_id in the users table and the > proposed unique constraint with a function. Because all those might > fail, if you ever want to change the relationship between a site and a > site group.
Good point! > My advise would be to have two triggers for insert/update on the site > and users table that check the uniqueness of the username with the > site_group. A have made some tests with inserts and updates on the > existing users and sites and these two functions seem to work. I think this is the way that I'll go. I'd hoped to somehow express this solely in the design, if you know what i mean (e.g. without writing SPs), but it looks like this is the best way to do it. > One remark about your schema: If you use PostgreSQL, use the "text" > datatype for strings, since you don't limit yourself with the string > length. [snip] For some reason I assumed varchar had an advantage over text, but a quick check of the docs suggests that's not the case. Thanks for this tip! :-) Thank you for your taking the time to write this up, it's very much appreciated. Cheers, J. -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
