Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from
	<pgsql-sql-owner+M37276=pgsql+2Dsql=arkaria.postgresql.org@postgresql.org>)
	id 1UXF9F-0005bB-5G
	for pgsql-sql@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:19:29 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from
	<pgsql-sql-owner+M37276=pgsql+2Dsql=arkaria.postgresql.org@postgresql.org>)
	id 1UXF9E-0005kY-Ki
	for pgsql-sql@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:19:28 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <feliphil@gmx.net>) id 1UXF9D-0005kS-No
	for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:19:27 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <feliphil@gmx.net>) id 1UXF9A-0004Ms-RC
	for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:19:27 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.24]) by mrigmx.server.lan
	(mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MJ0dz-1UZhz82dZ3-002UlX for
	<pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:19:23 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2013 18:19:23 -0000
Received: from p5082D1AD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO GK1C06) [80.130.209.173]
	by mail.gmx.net (mp024) with SMTP; 30 Apr 2013 20:19:23 +0200
X-Authenticated: #41312857
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1++Ou1SRqG+Qq/y1jhdmyvseYiH6Gp2wLanI9z+C3
	IOzAhHqJMLvz8C
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:19:22 +0200
From: Wolfgang Keller <feliphil@gmx.net>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Correct implementation of 1:n relationship with n>0?
Message-Id: <20130430201922.be3c8b2294ccbf48fbff362f@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130430163905.77d43412c0176c3d9ebd8d90@gmx.net>
References: <20130430163905.77d43412c0176c3d9ebd8d90@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mail-Copies-To: never
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----)
List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql>
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
List-ID: <pgsql-sql.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-sql>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-sql>
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-sql
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org

> It hit me today that a 1:n relationship can't be implemented just by a
> single foreign key constraint if n>0. I must have been sleeping very
> deeply not to notice this.
> 
> E.g. if there is a table "list" and another table "list_item" and the
> relationship can be described as "every list has at least one
> list_item" (and every list_item can only be part of one list, but
> this is trivial).

<duck>

BTW: If every list_item could be part of any number (>0) of lists, you
get a n:m relationship with a join table and then the issue that each
list_item has to belong to at least one list arises as well.

Maybe there should also be a standard solution documented somewhere for
this case, too.

</duck>

Sincerely,

Wolfgang


-- 
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql