Re: foreign key constraint versus referential integrity constraint
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:43:15 GMT
Message-ID: <T87Fm.49390$Db2.514_at_edtnps83>
>
> It would be very illogical. Names are very important things. What does
> id mean if you pretend it means two mutually exclusive things?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:43:15 GMT
Message-ID: <T87Fm.49390$Db2.514_at_edtnps83>
Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
...
>> Not that I'm advocating it but I imagine there would be nothing >> illogical if the model (just another word for 'interpretation') let >> the heading be (id in char(2), id in integer, name ... etc.) even if >> that's contrary to TTM, not to mention sql convention.
>
> It would be very illogical. Names are very important things. What does
> id mean if you pretend it means two mutually exclusive things?
Obviously you wouldn't, you would have to name the type as well as the attribute. Personally, another alternative wouldn't bother me, eg. excluding both both attributes from the heading union. Received on Mon Oct 26 2009 - 02:43:15 CET