rihad writes:
> I want the effects of the above foo.key in every sense, but only for
> entries having foo.flag=true. So I think I'll write before-statement
> triggers to do just that instead of the key. But is data consistency
> still guaranteed as the foreign key in foo would otherwise do?
No
rihad wrote:
Due to lack of support for partial (conditional) multi-column foreign
keys in 8.3, can before-triggers be used to implement them in terms of
data consistency and speed?
Let me clarify the question in semi-pseudo-SQL:
table foo {
bar_id int not null;
baz_id int not null;
fla
Hello,
Due to lack of support for partial (conditional) multi-column foreign
keys in 8.3, can before-triggers be used to implement them in terms of
data consistency and speed?
Thanks.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:21:33PM -0500, Eric E wrote:
> >maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain null
> >values.
> >
> >if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
> >check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
>
>
> I did think
> On 11/17/05, Eric E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What's the best way to do this? My immediate reaction is that I want a
> > partial foreign key, but perhaps this is not a good way to go about such
> > a design.
Normally I just have multiple columns with all but one NULL.
Alternatively
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 13:36, Eric E wrote:
Eric E wrote:
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain
null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 13:36, Eric E wrote:
> Eric E wrote:
>
> >> maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain
> >> null values.
> >>
> >> if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
> >> check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
> >
>
Eric E wrote:
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain
null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
I did think about that, but I disliked the idea of two fields of nulls
maybe you can solve it adding a new col and allow both to contain null values.
if these are not mutually exclusive you can avoid a check if they are
check that if one has a non-null value other has null...
I did think about that, but I disliked the idea of two fields of nulls for
every one fu
On 11/17/05, Eric E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>In my database application, I've repeatedly encountered a particular
> issue, and I'm not sure I'm addressing it well, so I'd like suggestions
> on how to deal with it. The problem is that I need something like a
> partial foreign key -
Hi all,
In my database application, I've repeatedly encountered a particular
issue, and I'm not sure I'm addressing it well, so I'd like suggestions
on how to deal with it. The problem is that I need something like a
partial foreign key - a foreign key where, based on field1, in some rows
11 matches
Mail list logo
