Hi, Helen.

I do not want to re-parent, and re-parenting would have no affect for
us. I do not want to "orphan" records, so setting to NULL would be
inappropriate (and a pain because the current schema does not allow NULL).

By what you have written, I assume Restrict of NO ACTION are my best
choices.

Thanks again.
Kurt.

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Helen Borrie wrote:
>
> At 08:36 AM 17/01/2008, Nando wrote:
>
> >H> Even Oracle and DB2 seem to have no implementation difference
> >H> between RESTRICT and NO ACTION.
> >
> >Here is a quote from the DB2 docs:
> >
> >"A delete or update rule of RESTRICT is enforced before all other
> >constraints including those referential constraints with modifying
> >rules such as CASCADE or SET NULL. A delete or update rule of NO
> >ACTION is enforced after other referential constraints. There are very
> >few cases where this can make a difference during a delete or update."
> >
> >Talk about subtle! :-) I am not sure about Oracle.
>
> Subtle indeed! That description sounds as though DB2 lets you
declare multiple actions for a single constraint. Bizarre!
>
> ./heLen
>