Why not just drop the "references" clause? I mean, the point of having
transactions is to guarantee integrity within a transaction, if you're not
going to have that, why even bother with the clause?
Most of my databases don't even user "references", just because I like the
flexibility, and I have multitable keys (keys that can refer to rows from
multiple tables).
Jon
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Dmitry Tkach wrote:
> kay-uwe.genz wrote:
>
> >Hi @ all,
> >
> >i've a little problem with two tables and FOREIGN KEYs. I've read about
> >this long time ago, but didn't remember me where. Well, I hope you can
> >help me.
> >
> >I've create two TABLEs "counties" and "cities". "Countries" have a row
> >"capital" is REFERENCEd "cities". "cities" have a row country
> >REFERENCEd "countries", where a save the country the city is placed.
> >
> >And now PG couldn't create the TABLEs, because the referenced table
> >doesn't exists in time of creation. Is there another method of creating
> >than the ALTER TABLE the first table after the second is living?
> >
> No. But what's wrong with ALTER TABLE?
>
> >
> >Second question. Is there a method of INSERT INTO both tables VALUES
> >without group them in the same Transaction?
> >
> >
> No (assuming, that you are talking about inserting a new country and a
> capital at the same time, and that the country's capital column cannot
> be null).
> But what's wrong with transactions?
>
> Dima
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>