There are a few problems with your tables. I'll try to address the foreign keys first, since you question asked about them :)
But before that, we should realize that the two sets of tables (the first three you created and the second set, which you created after dropping the first set) are the same. Of course, the definition of Table3
in your second attempt has syntax and logical errors, but the basic idea is:
CREATE TABLE table3 (
"ID" bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
"DataID" bigint DEFAULT NULL,
"Address" numeric(20) DEFAULT NULL,
"Data" bigint DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY ("ID"),
FOREIGN KEY ("DataID") REFERENCES Table1("DataID") on delete cascade on update cascade,
FOREIGN KEY ("Address") REFERENCES Table2("Address") on delete cascade on update cascade
);
This definition tell PostgreSQL roughly the following: "Create a table with four columns, one will be the primary key (PK), the others can be NULL
. If a new row is inserted, check DataID
and Address
: if they contain a non-NULL value (say 27856), then check Table1
for DataID
Λ™and Table2
for Address
. If there is no such value in those tables, then return an error." This last point which you've seen first:
ERROR: insert or update on table "Table3" violates foreign key constraint
"Table3_DataID_fkey" DETAIL: Key (DataID)=(27856) is not present in table "Table1".
So simple: if there is no row in Table1
where DataID = 27856
, then you can't insert that row into Table3
.
If you need that row, you should first insert a row into Table1
with DataID = 27856
, and only then try to insert into Table3
. If this seems to you not what you want, please describe in a few sentences what you want to achieve, and we can help with a good design.
And now about the other problems.
You define your PKs as
CREATE all_your_tables (
first_column NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
[...]
PRIMARY KEY ("ID"),
A primary key means that all the items in it are different from each other, that is, the values are UNIQUE
. If you give a static DEFAULT
(like '0'
) to a UNIQUE
column, you will experience bad surprises all the time. This is what you got in your third error message.
Furthermore, '0'
means a text string, but not a number (bigint
or numeric
in your case). Use simply 0
instead (or don't use it at all, as I written above).
And a last point (I may be wrong here): in Table2
, your Address
field is set to numeric(20)
. At the same time, it is the PK of the table. The column name and the data type suggests that this address can change in the future. If this is true, than it is a very bad choice for a PK. Think about the following scenario: you have an address '1234567890454', which has a child in Table3
like
ID DataID Address Data
123 3216547 1234567890454 654897564134569
Now that address happens to change to something other. How do you make your child row in Table3
follow its parent to the new address? (There are solutions for this, but can cause much confusion.) If this is your case, add an ID column to your table, which will not contain any information from the real world, it will simply serve as an identification value (that is, ID) for an address.
You're interpreting the semantics of the delete statement incorrectly. When a using
clause is used, it doesn't mean that records will also be deleted from those tables. Instead, those tables are purely used to join to in order to determine which rows need to be deleted from Users
.
You basically have three choices:
- deleting child rows in a
before delete on Users
trigger.
on delete cascade
constraints.
- execute multiple delete statements on the various tables involved, in the right order.
My preference, in certain cases, is actually for the on delete cascade
constraints, but I don't use them everywhere: just for the situation where it makes sense to be able to remove all of the children of a given parent in one go. I might use it for "invoices" and "invoice_lines".
When you take this approach you need to be sure that only users who really need to be able to delete from the parent table have that privilege -- no users or applications logging in as table owners!
Best Answer
Unfortunately, you can't define a foreign key against a partitioned table, only the partitions themselves - but, of course, the referencing table can have only on FK on the column in question...
So you have to either partition the referencing table, too, or live together with foreign-keylessness (with help from a trigger or the application code).
Let me note that similarly, you will have to define the eventual (unique) indexes on the child tables one by one. This also means that unique constraints have to be defined this way, too.