On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:47:55AM +0700, David Garamond wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >>This brings up an interesting idea. What if it were possible to set
> > >>some kind of rules on DDL at database creation time? For example, I'd
> > >>like to
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How big a project would it be to have generalized DDL triggers? Apart
> from resource allocation, what are some downsides of providing such a
> facility?
BEFORE triggers on the system catalogs are Right Out. In principle we
could support AFTER triggers,
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:47:55AM +0700, David Garamond wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>This brings up an interesting idea. What if it were possible to set
> >>some kind of rules on DDL at database creation time? For example, I'd
> >>like to be able to throw an error if somebody tries to nam
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, David Garamond wrote:
With all due respect, David, everybody is entitled to his own opinion and
yours is not the absolute truth. Column and table naming is not exact
science. Naming every single-column PK as "id" has advantages over
"_id":
- you instantly know that "id" is P
David Garamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With all due respect, David, everybody is entitled to his own opinion and
> yours is not the absolute truth. Column and table naming is not exact science.
Sure. But let me put another big vote in favour against the "id" naming scheme
and for the "tabl
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
This brings up an interesting idea. What if it were possible to set
some kind of rules on DDL at database creation time? For example, I'd
like to be able to throw an error if somebody tries to name an object
any of the SQL keywords.
Other possible rules:
* Every table must
David Fetter wrote:
BTW, "id" is a terrible name for a column. Better call it foo_id.
I disagree with the idea that "id" is a terrible name for a column. The
only negative to it, is that you will have to be explicit in your
declarations when doing joins and such... ex:
SELECT * FROM foo
JOIN
This brings up an interesting idea. What if it were possible to set
some kind of rules on DDL at database creation time? For example, I'd
like to be able to throw an error if somebody tries to name an object
any of the SQL keywords.
Other possible rules:
* Every table must have a comment
* noCam
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 08:35:21 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> * Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-06 08:23:11 -0700]:
>
> ALTER TABLE foo ADD CONSTRAINT must_have_a_or_b CHECK (a::int IS NULL
> AND b::int IS NOT NULL OR a::int IS NOT NULL AND b::int IS NULL);
A simpler constraint is:
check
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:07:43AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>
> >>SELECT * FROM foo
> >> JOIN bar on (foo.id = bar.id)
> >>
> >>Personally I would rather see, and write that then:
> >>
> >>SELECT * FROM foo
> >> JOIN bar on (foo_id = bar_id)
> >
> >
> >With all due respect, Josh, naming y
SELECT * FROM foo
JOIN bar on (foo.id = bar.id)
Personally I would rather see, and write that then:
SELECT * FROM foo
JOIN bar on (foo_id = bar_id)
With all due respect, Josh, naming your columns with decipherable
names, i.e. *not* having 50 different things called "id" in your db
helps enormo
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:32:02AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >What's "reasonable?" ;)
> >
> >BTW, "id" is a terrible name for a column. Better call it foo_id.
>
> Hello,
>
> I disagree with the idea that "id" is a terrible name for a column. The
> only negative to it, is that you will h
What's "reasonable?" ;)
BTW, "id" is a terrible name for a column. Better call it foo_id.
Hello,
I disagree with the idea that "id" is a terrible name for a column. The
only negative to it, is that you will have to be explicit in your
declarations when doing joins and such... ex:
SELECT * FRO
Use a post trigger function, ON UPDATE, INSERT which essentially has
this in it:
if ( ISNULL(new.a) AND ISNULL(new.b) ){ RAISE NOTICE "blah blah"; }
I work with PHP a lot, just a little plpgsql, so, the grammar may be
wrong above.
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I have have the table:
create
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 08:23:11AM -0700, Ben wrote:
> If I have have the table:
>
> create table foo
> (
> a int references bar(id),
> b int references baz(id)
> )
>
> ... how do I make sure one and only one of the columns a and b are
> non-null?
You could write it like this:
CREA
* Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-06 08:23:11 -0700]:
> If I have have the table:
>
> create table foo
> (
> a int references bar(id),
> b int references baz(id)
> )
>
> ... how do I make sure one and only one of the columns a and b are
> non-null? Is it even reasonable?
ALTER TAB
If I have have the table:
create table foo
(
a int references bar(id),
b int references baz(id)
)
... how do I make sure one and only one of the columns a and b are
non-null? Is it even reasonable?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don
17 matches
Mail list logo
