Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Brendan Jurd wrote:
>> >
>> > As a note, there are workarounds for foreign keys that have been mentioned
>> > in the past. I'm not really sure anyone's post a real good workaround for
>> > unique though.
>>
>> Wouldn't a central table just holding the unique key values and
>> maintained by rules/triggers from all the tables in the inheritance tree
>> do the trick?
>>
>> That central table would be the referenced one too then, because it
>> contains the union of all keys.
>
> That's the general thing for the fks and I guess the insert into the
> central table should have the correct behavior in concurrent calls as
> well.
I'm not 100% sure though. Is there any possibility that an entry in a
table hides an entry in an inherited one?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
