Re: delete cascade
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:32:43 GMT
Message-ID: <%B9Xh.27397$PV3.286036_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> I can see that it would fully enclose, ie., enclose in one relation, but
> not sure how it would disclose any more fully than two selections and a
> join.
>
> Not trying to be picky but I found your view suggestion to be profound
> and want to make sure I understand this one.
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:32:43 GMT
Message-ID: <%B9Xh.27397$PV3.286036_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> paul c wrote: >> >>> Bob Badour wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>> Would it suffice to declare the view using the RVA as above and then >>>> project away the RVA? >>> >>> I'm guessing that you mention rva's so that there can be no chance >>> that a product would be permitted to only partially complete the >>> operation, and leave some items dangling, whereas some products might >>> allow a series of delete statements to be interrupted? >> >> I mention it because it would fully disclose the data to be deleted, >> which is the invoice and the associated items.
>
> I can see that it would fully enclose, ie., enclose in one relation, but
> not sure how it would disclose any more fully than two selections and a
> join.
>
> Not trying to be picky but I found your view suggestion to be profound
> and want to make sure I understand this one.
I didn't refer to two selects and a join so I find your comment confusing. I was discussing a single delete that deletes both just as an "on delete cascade" trigger would delete both. Received on Mon Apr 23 2007 - 23:32:43 CEST