Re: Literals in foreign key definitions
От | Tim Landscheidt |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Literals in foreign key definitions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m3zl3on6b8.fsf@passepartout.tim-landscheidt.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Literals in foreign key definitions (Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl>) |
Ответы |
Re: Literals in foreign key definitions
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> wrote: > [...] > Now the intent here is to restrict foreign keys referencing the base class to unitclass records that describe a baseclassand to restrict foreign keys referencing a derived class to unitclass records that do NOT describe a baseclass. > Basically I'm trying to disallow derived classes to be derived of other derived classes. > I can of course add a few triggers to force that constraint, but I think it would be nice if the above syntax could bemade to work. Or is this already in 8.4 or 8.5 or is this a can of worms? Does the SQL spec disallow it? If you want to avoid triggers, another, simpler approach is to have a otherwise superfluous column "is_baseclass" with a default "TRUE" and constraints "NOT NULL" and "CHECK(is_baseclass)" and then use a "normal" foreign key constraint. I usually find that easier to read as it's more familiar. Tim
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: