Re: Foreign key problem

From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:24:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4ij3m3-fcr.ln1@pluto.downsfam.net>

mAsterdam wrote:

> 
> 

>> In the limited example given in the post, yes.
>>
>> In fact we have half-dozen or so other flags on the FK table, two of
>> which
>> combine to provide multiple FK's between any two tables. We employ a
>> "suffix" and a "prefix" property, each of which is used to alter the
>> names of the columns in the child tables by adding the obvious prefix or
>> suffix
>> to each column in the child table. Hence a declaration like so:
>>
>> table employees {
>> column employee { primary_key: Y; }
>> foreign_key employees { suffix: _sup; }
>> }
>>
>> or:
>>
>> table fk {
>> foreign_key tables { suffix: _child; }
>> foreign_key tables { suffix: _parent; }
>> }
>>
>> We have no desire to completely rename columns, as this leads to
>> obfuscation. This approach to naming columns is not for everyone, but we
>> like it.

> 
> By using _child, and _parent suffixes
> (which, BTW, by themselves do /not/
> facilitate more than one FK in one table
> referencing one other) 

?

Of course they do.

Multiple fk entries with different suffixes and/or prefixes provide multiple fk's from table A to table B. Each is uniquely specified and implemented.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth@(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)

Received on Tue Jun 13 2006 - 15:24:56 CDT