| From: | Rudi Starcevic <rudi(at)oasis(dot)net(dot)au> | 
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Address Table | 
| Date: | 2003-06-27 01:09:03 | 
| Message-ID: | 3EFB992F.2050503@oasis.net.au | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice | 
Josh,
>> But if addresses are dependant on parks, you simply use ON DELETE 
>> CASCADE in your FK declaration, and when you delete a Park its addresses will 
>> be automatically deleted.
I think I can only do this is I have the parks_table key in the parks_address table.
One other option, as Nabil suggested, is to have the foreign key the other way round.
Ie. the parks_address key in the parks_table.
Using Nabil's suggestion I wouldn't be able to cascade the delete into the parks_address table.
Thus leaving a lonely address.
So far I think we have discussed 3 solid and sensible options which are all correct SQL possibilities.
I'm just trying to get clear in my head which is the best for this senario.
Thanks
Rudi.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-06-27 01:16:37 | Re: enum, set | 
| Previous Message | M Spreij | 2003-06-27 01:04:45 | enum, set |