Re: DELETE trigger, direct or indirect? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: DELETE trigger, direct or indirect?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZ-f+ukUkai64mj_SFFSW_WC0nr+1SmzEkvauf+qASfhg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: DELETE trigger, direct or indirect?  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
Responses Re: DELETE trigger, direct or indirect?  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 9:46 AM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 2/16/23 05:23, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> Hi. This is a bit unusual. We have a foreign key between two tables,
> with ON DELETE CASCADE, to preserve referential integrity. But we
> apparently also need to preserve the severed reference (by natural key,
> i.e. its name), to later on reconnect the two entities after-the-fact,
> should the parent row re-appear later on (in the same transaction or not
> it still unclear).

This is going to need a more detailed description of the relationship
between the two tables:

1) The actual FK relationship.

2) What "...preserve the severed reference (by natural key,  i.e. its
name)" means?

3) What information will be used to reconnect the child rows to the
parent rows?


Maybe the OP should be using ON DELETE SET NULL instead of CASCADE?

David J.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: DELETE trigger, direct or indirect?
Next
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: DELETE trigger, direct or indirect?