From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
To: Erik Thiele <erik@thiele-hydraulik.de>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: special integrity constraints
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:12:11 -0600
Message-ID: <20040322151211.GA2962@wolff.to> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040322141042.0aeb936d.erik@thiele-hydraulik.de>
References: <20040322102031.6a6f0b77.erik@thiele-hydraulik.de>
<20040322112604.GA31222@wolff.to>
<20040322141042.0aeb936d.erik@thiele-hydraulik.de>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 14:10:42 +0100,
Erik Thiele <erik@thiele-hydraulik.de> wrote:
>
> it means (((count_rows(a)+count_rows(b)) modulo 2) == 0)
OK, that means my FK suggestion won't help. The other suggestion about
putting triggers on "a" and "b" to update a count in another table
that has a deferred check constraint on it may be your best bet.
This will be a source of contention, but that may or may not be all
that important depending on how often you are updating "a" and "b".
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: bruno@wolff.to, erik@thiele-hydraulik.de
Subject: Re: special integrity constraints
In-Reply-To: <20040322151211.GA2962@wolff.to>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox