yes i can put other field for identifier , but i think that whit the name
of the table i can know it
2013/10/31 David Johnston <pol...@yahoo.com>
> Adrian Klaver-3 wrote
> >> Table1
> >> Column | Type | Modifiers
> >>
> ----------+-------------------__+-----------------------------__------------------------------__--
> >> id | integer | not null default
> >> nextval('test_table_id_fld___seq'::regclass)
> >>
> >>
> >> Table2
> >> Column | Type | related
> >>
> ----------+-------------------__+-----------------------------__------------------------------__--
> >> id_table1 | integer | FK of Table1.id
> >> id_lang | integer | FK of lang.id
> >> <http://lang.id>
> >> name | varchar
> >>
>
> The PK for table 2 is composite: the serial key from table 1 + the language
> id. The table 1 id has to be able to repeat since the same "entity" needs
> multiple translations. Using a serial on table 2 is also possible but a
> separate issue and probably not worth adding since you need a unique index
> on (id_table1, id_lang) regardless.
>
> The question is why isn't there some kind of identifier on table 1 that
> gives you some idea of what the id/table record is for?
>
> David J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Table-with-Field-Serial-Problem-tp5776516p5776546.html
> Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
