paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> paul c wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>>>> I understand how it expresses the constraint. What does that have to
>>>> do with cascading, though?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would prevent the deletion of invoice 99 and thus any cascade
>>> unless there were no items for invoice 99. (assuming a system that
>>> always cascades deletions, ie., one that has no "cascade" keyword.)
>>
>>
>>
>> If it prevents deletion, it doesn't "always cascade deletes". I really
>> don't have a clue what you are trying to say. It doesn't make any
>> sense to me whatsoever.
>
>
> Oh, alright Bob, if you want to be that way, it always cascades when it
> deletes! (I feel as if I'm attending a council meeting, the one Date
> mentioned where they spent some time how to say that a dog in a park
> must be leashed.)
>
> Don't mind my exasperation, I'm grateful for the comments.
I am still lost. When does it delete? When does it not delete?
Received on Tue Apr 17 2007 - 19:47:44 CDT
