Re: [SQLObject] two postgres questions

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 03:27, Bud P.Bruegger wrote:
> > Actually, I don't consider my db models to be legacy models... "legacy" 
> > kind of implies "out of date", "mainframe", etc.

> I agree that "legacy" isn't a good term.  What I meant is really a
> pre-existing data schema that has to be accesses (in contrast to one
> that is newly created following the needs of the middleware).

You know, outside of programming "legacy" doesn't imply anything bad :)

> I'm wondering what can (theoretically) be done and where, if they
> exist, are difficulties.  OID is one that I see.  Besides this, I
> believe that (what Postgresql calls) constraints should be quite
> straight forward to add.  I already declare foreign keys all the way.
> While I haven't implemented it yet, I believe it to be easy to add
> things such as CHECK constraints, multi-field UNIQUE constraints, etc.
> I also plan to add the declaration of INDICES.  I haven't thought of
> constraints that involve multiple tables.  But off hand it doesn't
> seem difficult either.  

If you really need a sophisticated data definition, you can always
create the table yourself, and allow the database to handle much of the
logic (like constraints).  That seems acceptable to me.

What I suspect Edmund's problem is, is that his tables don't map well to
classes.  Or maybe more accurately, his *usage* doesn't map well to
instances and attribute access.  I'm imagining that his applications are
phrased with rows being relations, not so much structured data.  Or at
least some of the data.

  Ian