Consider applying "database normalization" to the schema so that the columns are only in one table, and then pass around synthetic keys.
On 6/5/23 10:06, Lorusso Domenico wrote:
Thank's, you are right, I've the same doubts.
A composite type is useful because I've to add all these information on many tables and because it more easy to pass all these informations to functions that have to ensure the right format and evaluation.
Talking about first point I could use the "table inheritance", but I've to reset all constraints for each table :-(
On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 11:49 +0200, Lorusso Domenico wrote:
> I've a couple of questions about composite type.
> Suppose this composite type:
> CREATE TYPE my_type AS (
> user_ts_start My_start_timestamp,
> user_ts_end My_end_timestamp,
> db_ts_start My_start_timestamp,
> db_ts_end My_end_timestamp,
> audit_record jsonb
> );
> My_start_timestamp is a domain of timestamp with default as now().
> My_end_timestamp is a domain of timestamp with default as infinite
>
> 1. May I use user_ts_start and/or db_ts_start has part of Primary Key of a table that contains a field of my_type?
> 2. to add an overall check constraint on the entire composite type, could be a valid
> approach to create a domain based on my_type and add a custom function to validate it? (check_my_type(VALUE)).
> In this way I've a dominan of composite type that contain others domain... what do you think?
Avoid using composite types as data types for a table column.
It adds complexity for no clear gain.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Domenico L.
per stupire mezz'ora basta un libro di storia,
io cercai di imparare la Treccani a memoria... [F.d.A.]
--
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
