Hi Mark, Thank you for your question, I might actually do the same. I just had issues on a model with 2 M2M relationships (one using an intermediary table, one without).
I would just caveat what James Schneider said, there are some differences. My simply M2M relationship threw me Field Required Errors while the one using a intermediary table didn't, implicitly making the field required=False. It seems like the default M2M is required as expected[1], but it's tricky to have the M2M through relationship not throw the same error. Best, John [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/7073 Note: I noticed this through DRF, haven't tested on a small reproducible case in pure Django. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:54:08 PM UTC-5, mark wrote: > > Is there any downside to creating a through table in a many to many > relationship when there isn't any "extra" related data, but there might be > in the future? > > I have read that migrating from a simple m2m relationship to a m2m with a > through table takes some jumping through hurdles, so I am considering > creating the through table now in case "the powers that be" (ie end users!) > decide we need some extra data for the relationship in the future. > > Thanks! > > Mark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/ed333230-f9b7-4f3c-8485-1edf049f50f8%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
