| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cost of empty fields |
| Date: | 2005-04-21 04:09:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20050421040957.GZ58835@decibel.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:19:02AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Jim C. Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote:
> > If you setup rules on the view and just have the application select,
> > insert, update, and delete from the view instead of the raw tables you
> > won't need to change your application at all. Though you do need to be
> > aware that you can't easily enforce uniqueness across multiple tables.
> hmm. that doesnt sound stable enough for me.
> this table is really critical and there's a lot of money in game
> (realtime currency trading ...)
Note I didn't say you couldn't do it, I just said it wasn't easy. Easy
as in adding a normal unique constraint. In this case, you need to add
triggers to the tables to check for uniqueness. It's absolutely stable,
it's just not as nice as it could be.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wim Bertels | 2005-04-21 11:03:44 | Re: brute force attacking the password |
| Previous Message | Enrico Weigelt | 2005-04-21 02:19:02 | Re: cost of empty fields |