X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA45D1DC5D for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:11:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29573-02 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:12:03 -0400 (AST) Received: from matrix.gatewaynet.com (matrix.gatewaynet.com [217.19.69.50]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CCDED1DC40 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:11:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from matrix.gatewaynet.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by matrix.gatewaynet.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2MADTNu031690; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:13:29 +0200 Received: from localhost (achill@localhost) by matrix.gatewaynet.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i2MADTbu031686; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:13:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:13:29 +0200 (EET) From: Achilleus Mantzios To: Erik Thiele Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: special integrity constraints In-Reply-To: <20040322102031.6a6f0b77.erik@thiele-hydraulik.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200403/210 X-Sequence-Number: 17309 O kyrios Erik Thiele egrapse stis Mar 22, 2004 : Did you check out the DEFERRABLE option on the constraint? > hi, > > i have two tables > > create table a (x integer); > create table b (y real); > > i have the special constraint that the sum of the number of rows in > table a plus the number of rows in table b must be even. > > so there is a posibility of adding one element to a and one element to > b, and again the constraint is met. > > but this of course does not work, since between adding the element to a > and adding the element to b, the constraint is not met. > > so i cannot use a trigger. > > what i need is the execution of a check procedure at commit time. is > that somehow possible? > > my database has much more tables than just a and b, and most time the other > tables are modified and not a or b, so it would be nice to execute the > constraint checking procedure only if a or b was modified. > > yes :) this question i asked in my former mail too, but I think it > looked like there was a workaround and my problem was wrong. so i > created this new kind of problem here to make things clearer. > > > cu > Erik > > > -- -Achilleus