On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 05:37:20PM -0700, Reece Hart wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:29 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > > I'm missing what you're doing here that foreign keys don't cover. > > Could you send along your DDL? > > No DDL yet... I'm just in the thinking stages. FKs technically would > do it, but would become unwieldy. The intention was to have > subclasses of each of the variant, association, and phenotype > tables. That leads to the polymorphic key problem. How many (order of magnitude) are we talking about here? > > Just generally, I've only found table inheritance useful for > > partitioning. "Polymorphic" foreign key constraints can be > > handled other ways such as the one sketched out below. > > That answers the question -- I do want polymorphic foreign keys. > Dang. It solved some real-world problems I had at the time, mostly from the game space. My biology is a little rusty :/ Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@xxxxxxxxx Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
