Re: [GENERAL] Database design confusing pg_restore, and misc pg_restore issues

2010-05-09 Thread Alban Hertroys
On 9 May 2010, at 6:49, Rick Yorgason wrote: > So, your first suggestion would look like this: > >> reginfo(order_id, product_id, reginfo1_columns, reginfo2_columns, FOREIGN >> KEY(order_id, product_id) REFERENCES order_items) > > For the sake of illustration, let's say that order_item's foreig

Re: [GENERAL] Database design confusing pg_restore, and misc pg_restore issues

2010-05-08 Thread Rick Yorgason
On 08/05/2010 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Since you say that --disable-triggers doesn't help, I guess that you're applying that function not in a trigger but in a CHECK constraint? That's pretty horrid in itself: CHECK is *not* meant to enforce anything except local properties of the newly inserted

Re: [GENERAL] Database design confusing pg_restore, and misc pg_restore issues

2010-05-08 Thread Tom Lane
Rick Yorgason writes: > In other words, (order_id, product_id) of order_item is a foreign key to > either reginfo1, reginfo2, or nothing, depending on which product it is. I think you'll find that few people regard that as good database design. > The works really well, until I try to use pg_dum