This question already has answers here:
PostgreSQL foreign key not existing, issue of inheritance?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
create table abstract_addresses (
address_id int primary key
);
create table phone_numbers (
phone_number text not null unique
) inherits (abstract_addresses) ;
create table contacts (
name text primary key,
address_id int not null references abstract_addresses(address_id)
);
insert into phone_numbers values (1, '18005551212'); --works
select * from abstract_addresses;
address_id
1
select * from phone_numbers;
address_id phone_number
1 18005551212
insert into contacts values ('Neil', 1); --error
I get this error message:
ERROR: insert or update on table "contacts" violates foreign key constraint "contacts_address_id_fkey"
SQL state: 23503
Detail: Key (address_id)=(1) is not present in table "abstract_addresses".
Just a bad use-case for postgresql table inheritance?
Per the caveats in the docs:
A serious limitation of the inheritance feature is that indexes (including unique constraints) and foreign key constraints only apply to single tables, not to their inheritance children. This is true on both the referencing and referenced sides of a foreign key constraint.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ddl-inherit.html
To do what you want:
Create a table with only an id — like you did.
Don't use inheritance. Really don't. It's useful to partition log tables; not for what you're doing.
Make phone number ids default to nextval('abstract_addresses_address_id_seq'), or whatever the sequence name is.
Add a foreign key in phone_numbers referencing abstract_addresses (address_id). Make it deferrable, initially deferred.
Add an after insert trigger on phone_numbers that inserts a new row in abstract_addresses when needed.
If appropriate, add an after delete trigger on phone_numbers that cascade deletes abstract_addresses — make sure it occurs after the delete, else affected rows will report incorrect values when you delete from phone_numbers.
That way, you'll have an abstract_address for use in occasional tables that need such a thing, while still being able to have a hard reference to phone_numbers where the latter is what you actually want.
One caveat to be aware of: it doesn't play well with ORMs.
Related
This question already has an answer here:
ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns
(1 answer)
Closed last month.
I'm trying to create a partitioned table which refers to itself, creating a doubly-linked list.
CREATE TABLE test2 (
id serial NOT NULL,
category integer NOT NULL,
time timestamp(6) NOT NULL,
prev_event integer,
next_event integer
) PARTITION BY HASH (category);
Once I add primary key I get the following error.
alter table test2 add primary key (id);
ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns
DETAIL: PRIMARY KEY constraint on table "test2" lacks column "category" which is part of the partition key.
Why does the unique constrain require all partitioned columns to be included?
EDIT: Now I understand why this is needed: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-LIMITATIONS
Once I add PK with both columns it works.
alter table test2 add primary key (id, category);
But then adding the FK to itself doesn't work.
alter table test2 add foreign key (prev_event) references test2 (id) on update cascade on delete cascade;
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "test2"
Since PK is not just id but id-category I can't create FK pointing to id.
Is there any way to deal with this or am I missing something?
I would like to avoid using inheritance partitioning if possible.
EDIT2: It seems this is a known problem. https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/di5mbr/postgresql_12_foreign_keys_and_partitioned_tables/f3tsoop/
Seems that there is no straightforward solution. PostgreSQL simply doesn't support this as of v14. One solution is to use triggers to enforce 'foreign key' behavior. Other is to use multi-column foreign keys. Both are far from optimal.
I am trying to create the following tables in Postgres 13.3:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS accounts (
account_id Integer PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS users (
user_id Integer PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
account_id Integer NOT NULL REFERENCES accounts(account_id) ON DELETE CASCADE
);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS calendars (
calendar_id Integer PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
user_id Integer NOT NULL,
account_id Integer NOT NULL,
FOREIGN KEY (user_id, account_id) REFERENCES users(user_id, account_id) ON DELETE CASCADE
);
But I get the following error when creating the calendars table:
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "users"
Which does not make much sense to me since the foreign key contains the user_id which is the PK of the users table and therefore also has a uniqueness constraint. If I add an explicit uniqueness constraint on the combined user_id and account_id like so:
ALTER TABLE users ADD UNIQUE (user_id, account_id);
Then I am able to create the calendars table. This unique constraint seems unnecessary to me as user_id is already unique. Can someone please explain to me what I am missing here?
Postgres is so smart/dumb that it doesn't assume the designer to do stupid things.
The Postgres designers could have taken different strategies:
Detect the transitivity, and make the FK not only depend on users.id, but also on users.account_id -> accounts.id. This is doable but costly. It also involves adding multiple dependency-records in the catalogs for a single FK-constraint. When imposing the constraint(UPDATE or DELETE in any of the two referred tables), it could get very complex.
Detect the transitivity, and silently ignore the redundant column reference. This implies: lying to the programmer. It would also need to be represented in the catalogs.
cascading DDL operations would get more complex, too. (remember: DDL is already very hard w.r.t. concurrency/versioning)
From the execution/performance point of view: imposing the constraints currently involves "pseudo triggers" on the referred table's indexes. (except DEFERRED, which has to be handled specially)
So, IMHO the Postgres developers made the sane choice of refusing to do stupid complex things.
I'm using inheritance and I ended up having a problem.
If I run:
select count(*) from estate_properties where id = 86820;
I get 1.
But when I try to run this:
insert into property_images (binary_image, name, property_id) values (16779, 'IMG_0096.jpg', 86820)
I get:
********** Error **********
ERROR: insert or update on table "property_images" violates foreign
key constraint "property_images_property_id_fkey" SQL state: 23503
Detail: Key (property_id)=(86820) is not present in table
"estate_properties".
Also ID on estate_properties is SERIAL.
Note: Another table apartments inherits from estate_properties, and 86820 was added to it. Would that make a difference? Also why would it I still have the ID in the parent table and I can select if from there.
Edit:
Looking more closely at the documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/ddl-inherit.html
I want to achieve this:
5.9.1. Caveats
Specifying that another table's column REFERENCES cities(name) would
allow the other table to contain city names, but not capital names.
There is no good workaround for this case.
EDIT2:
Here is the declaration of the foreign key:
CONSTRAINT property_images_property_id_fkey FOREIGN KEY (property_id)
REFERENCES estate_properties (id) MATCH SIMPLE
ON UPDATE NO ACTION ON DELETE NO ACTION
Apparently the answer is here:
Foreign keys + table inheritance in PostgreSQL?
A foreign key can point to a table that is part of an inheritance hierarchy, but it'll only find rows in that table exactly. Not in any parent or child tables. To see which rows the foreign key sees, do a SELECT * FROM ONLY thetable. The ONLY keyword means "ignoring inheritance" and that's what the foreign key lookup will do
I have the following tables:
CREATE TABLE mail (
id serial,
parent_mail_id integer,
...
PRIMARY KEY (id),
FOREIGN KEY (parent_mail_id) REFERENCES mail(id),
...
);
CREATE TABLE incoming (
from_contact_id integer NOT NULL REFERENCES contact(id),
...
PRIMARY KEY (id),
---> FOREIGN KEY (parent_mail_id) REFERENCES mail(id), <---
...
) INHERITS(mail);
CREATE TABLE outgoing (
from_user_id integer NOT NULL REFERENCES "user"(id),
...
PRIMARY KEY (id),
--> FOREIGN KEY (parent_mail_id) REFERENCES mail(id), <--
...
) INHERITS(mail);
incoming and outgoing inherit from mail and define their foreign keys (and primary keys) again, as they are not automatically inherited.
The problem is:
If I'd insert an incoming mail, it is not possible to reference it from the outgoing table as the foreign key only works with the super table (mails).
Is there a workaround for that?
PostgreSQL 9.3 docs:
A serious limitation of the inheritance feature is that indexes
(including unique constraints) and foreign key constraints only apply
to single tables, not to their inheritance children. This is true on
both the referencing and referenced sides of a foreign key constraint.
Thus, in the terms of the above example:
If we declared cities.name to be UNIQUE or a PRIMARY KEY, this would not stop the capitals table from having rows with names
duplicating rows in cities. And those duplicate rows would by default
show up in queries from cities. In fact, by default capitals would
have no unique constraint at all, and so could contain multiple rows
with the same name. You could add a unique constraint to capitals, but
this would not prevent duplication compared to cities.
Similarly, if we were to specify that cities.name REFERENCES some other table, this constraint would not automatically propagate to
capitals. In this case you could work around it by manually adding the
same REFERENCES constraint to capitals.
Specifying that another table's column REFERENCES cities(name) would allow the other table to contain city names, but not capital
names. There is no good workaround for this case.
These deficiencies will probably be fixed in some future release, but
in the meantime considerable care is needed in deciding whether
inheritance is useful for your application.
And not really a workaround, so maybe make mails a non-inherited table, and then separate incoming_columns and outgoing_columns for their respective extra columns, with the mail id as both their primary and foreign key. You can then create a view outgoing as mail INNER JOIN outgoing_columns, for example.
You may use a constraint trigger
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION mail_ref_trigger()
RETURNS trigger AS
$BODY$
DECLARE
BEGIN
IF NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM mail WHERE id = NEW.parent_mail_id
) THEN
RAISE foreign_key_violation USING MESSAGE = FORMAT('Referenced mail id not found, mail_id:%s', NEW.parent_mail_id);
END IF;
RETURN NEW;
END;
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE
COST 100;
CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER mail_fkey_trigger
AFTER UPDATE OR INSERT ON incoming
DEFERRABLE
FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE mail_ref_trigger();
I currently have a parent table:
CREATE TABLE members (
member_id SERIAL NOT NULL, UNIQUE, PRIMARY KEY
first_name varchar(20)
last_name varchar(20)
address address (composite type)
contact_numbers varchar(11)[3]
date_joined date
type varchar(5)
);
and two related tables:
CREATE TABLE basic_member (
activities varchar[3]) // can only have 3 max activites
INHERITS (members)
);
CREATE TABLE full_member (
activities varchar[]) // can 0 to many activities
INHERITS (members)
);
I also have another table:
CREATE TABLE planner (
day varchar(9) FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES days(day)
time varchar(5) FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES times(time)
activity varchar(20) FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES activities(activity)
member bigint FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES members(member_id)
);
ALTER TABLE planner ADD CONSTRAINT pk_planner PRIMARKY KEY (day,time,activity,member);
I am currently trying to add with
INSERT INTO planner VALUES ('monday','09:00','Weights',2);
I have added a set into full_members with
INSERT INTO full_members
VALUES (Default, 'Hayley', 'Sargent', (12,'Forest Road','Mansfield','Nottinghamshire','NG219DX'),'{01623485764,07789485763,01645586754}',20120418,'Full');
My insert into Planner is currently not working — can you explain why?
i managed ot answer my own question it was becuase at the moment posgreSQL doesn't work very well with inheritence and foreign keys, so i have ot create a rule
CREATE RULE member_ref
AS ON INSERT TO planner
WHERE new.member NOT IN (SELECT member_id FROM members)
DO INSTEAD NOTHING;
this is basically the same as a foreign key
Not sure if this will be better solution but here it goes...
The principle is quite simple:
create new table lets call it table_with_pkeys which will replicate primary key column(s) of inherited tables child1, child2, child3...
create triggers on inherited tables, after insert, insert new PK into table_with_pkeys newly created PK, after update if it changes update it and after delete delete the same PK from table_with_pkeys.
Then in every table which should reference child1, child2 or whichever through parent table's PK using FK, point that FK not to parent's PK, but to table_with_pkeys which has copies of all childs PK's, and so you will have easy manageable way to have foreign keys that can cascade updates, restrict updates and so on.
Hope it helps.
You are missing an open quote before the 12 in the address:
INSERT INTO full_members
VALUES (Default, 'Hayley', 'Sargent', (12 Forest Road', 'Mansfield', 'Nottinghamshire', 'NG219DX'),
'{01623485764,07789485763,01645586754}',20120418,'Full');
should be:
INSERT INTO full_members
VALUES (Default, 'Hayley', 'Sargent', ('12 Forest Road', 'Mansfield', 'Nottinghamshire', 'NG219DX'),
'{01623485764,07789485763,01645586754}',20120418,'Full');
If the materialized view approach doesn't work for you above, create constraint triggers to check the referential integrity. Unfortunately declarative referential integrity doesn't work well with inheritance at present.