how to make undeleted record

[causacn]

Hi all,

I want to have some of records in table to be undeleted?
how can i do that?
for instance, keep first 20 records of table undeleted or read only for
outside access
but DBA or users who have DBA or higher level rights can do delete or
change operations.

Many thanks!

[Brian Tkatch]

I am not sure what you mean by undelete.

However, if you only want to let some people do a DELETE operation, and
others not, only GRANT DELETE to the users that require it.

If you want to allow some records to be DELETEable by everyone, and
others to only be DELETEable by some, CREATE two TABLEs, one for each
set, and GRANT DELETE to all users on one, and to only some users on
the second one. Then, CREATE a VIEW that is a UNION ALL on both TABLEs,
and have the users access the view rather than the individual TABLEs.

B.

[Knut Stolze]

Brian Tkatch wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by undelete.

However, if you only want to let some people do a DELETE operation, and
others not, only GRANT DELETE to the users that require it.

If you want to allow some records to be DELETEable by everyone, and
others to only be DELETEable by some, CREATE two TABLEs, one for each
set, and GRANT DELETE to all users on one, and to only some users on
the second one. Then, CREATE a VIEW that is a UNION ALL on both TABLEs,
and have the users access the view rather than the individual TABLEs.

Or you can use a view including the WITH CHECK OPTION. Deleting against the
view ensures that at least 20 records remain in the table.

Or you stick with triggers.
--
Knut Stolze
DB2 Information Integration Development
IBM Germany

[Brian Tkatch]

> Or you can use a view including the WITH CHECK OPTION. Deleting against the

view ensures that at least 20 records remain in the table.
How would you do that?
Or you stick with triggers.

A TRIGGER would definitely of service here.

....but...IMNHSO, i don't like the use of TRIGGERs for major things. If
the second TABLE was populated with DELETEs, but the second TABLE was
not used by the system, a TRIGGER makes a lot of sense as it is more
data management. But to have two TABLEs, and have a TRIGGER keep them
in sync for actual use (through a view), the application or stored
PROCEDURE should handle it. Otherwise it tends to get real messy.

IOW, the actual data model should not use TRIGGERs, only management
features like an non-natural Id COLUMN or a history TABLE (for "just in
case" purposes) or rights that cannot be otherwise implemented, or
auditing, etc should use TRIGGERs.

But that's just my opinion. :)

Based on the ugliness i've seen when people begin to rely on TRIGGERs
to populate other TABLEs, and then have to code around them.

B.

[Knut Stolze]

Brian Tkatch wrote:

Or you can use a view including the WITH CHECK OPTION. Deleting against
the view ensures that at least 20 records remain in the table.

How would you do that?

Create the view in such a way that the underlying table must have at least
those 20 records. And if that's not the case, the view does not show
anything. So deleting the 20th row would result in no rows shown in the
view and, thus, the check option being violated.

Granted, that's a rather strange way but it should work. After all, that's
just usual SQL stuff. ;-)

--
Knut Stolze
DB2 Information Integration Development
IBM Germany

[Brian Tkatch]

>Create the view in such a way that the underlying table must have at least those 20 records.

OK. Could you provide a quick example. I am curious how a view
guarantees a certain amount of rows.

Granted, that's a rather strange way but it should work. After all, that's just usual SQL stuff. ;-)

:)

Although, a good design (usually) removes the "usual" SQL stuff, so
things can be a bit more stright forward.

B.

[Knut Stolze]

Brian Tkatch wrote:

Create the view in such a way that the underlying table must have at least
those 20 records.

OK. Could you provide a quick example. I am curious how a view
guarantees a certain amount of rows.

SELECT ...
FROM <tab>
WHERE ... AND
( SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM <tab> ) >= 20

--
Knut Stolze
DB2 Information Integration Development
IBM Germany

[Brian Tkatch]

Oh, i see. That's easy, i guess i never thought of that. :)

Hmm.. This doesn't use any order though. IOW, it'll keep *any* twenty
records.

B.

[Knut Stolze]

Brian Tkatch wrote:

Oh, i see. That's easy, i guess i never thought of that. :)

Hmm.. This doesn't use any order though. IOW, it'll keep *any* twenty
records.

That's right. I don't know if the OP had any special tuples in mind.

--
Knut Stolze
DB2 Information Integration Development
IBM Germany