Dear heLen,

> >Is this still recommended with FB1 - or have I misunderstood the advice?
>
> No, you haven't misunderstood the advice. These low-density lookup tables
> are generally static and custom RI triggers work just fine. We seem to
> have observed quite a bit of misunderstanding and scare-mongering in this
> list recently wrt RI in general.

Please note that in both threads, the special lookup tables (or static
tables) case has always been put carefully apart (by Alex and myself) and
considered as "safe".

Helen, I really tackled this matter with no ready-made opinion. I was in
need of some complex constraint that could only be expressed with triggers.
Then I read Claudio's paper which clearly advises against custom RI in
triggers. Being no expert, I decided to ask the experts for clarifications
on this list. My aim wasn't to scare anybody but rather to *learn* the
truth.
However, my ignorance of the subject and my approximative english may have
confused the discussion. I'm sorry for this.

It remains that Claudio, Alex and Ann gave reproductible examples of
situations where custom RI in triggers could break a db's integrity.

> For example, in the latest posting from Jerome Bouvattier, he seems to be
> referring to custom RI as "RI triggers". To me, the term "RI triggers"
> refers to the system-created triggers that support declarative RI. In the
> preceding thread, the whole question got confounded by mis-terminology...

Yes, I used "RI triggers" for "Custom RI implemented in triggers". I'm
sorry if it was misleading.

Thanks for your patience.

--
Jerome