Wolfgang Keller-2 wrote
> What still astounds me is that, again, this (correct implementation of
> 1..n relationships with n>0) is an absolutely standard issue that is as
> old as relational databases per se and NO ONE has implemented (and
> documented and tested and...) a standard solution yet?
I would imagine most people are content using a 0..* cardinality instead of
a 1..*. Please, someone espouse the practical benefits of enforcing that
one record exists on the child table in order for a record to be present on
the parent.
> Gosh.
>
> What were all those people doing all those decades.
Inventing the Internet and, more recently, NoSQL databases. I guess the
problem was so difficult people just decided to get rid of cardinality
altogether.
David J.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Proper-solution-for-1-relationship-tp5753384p5753768.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - novice mailing list archive at Nabble.com.