Re: on primary keys (moved from Maypole list)

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/02/02]

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 12:03 -0500, Dana Hudes wrote:
> In my thinking you don't really need the MCFK.

We've been over the "just make an artificial key" argument on this list
before.  It is not an option for everyone, and many of us just don't
like creating artificial keys when the database is perfectly happy to
work with composite keys.  None of the Oracle DBAs I've worked with
created artificial keys in that situation.

> Or do you anyway because after all how do you assure referential
> integrity. The MySQL crowd of course say "you don't", "the database 
> doesn't care" and "deal with it in your application".
> Those of us using real RDBMS , where the R stands for Relational , like 
> PostgreSQL , Oracle , Sybase etc. , do care about referential integrity.
> So we want our library to care too :-)

This is FUD.  MySQL has supported referential integrity for years.

- Perrin