您有一个包含来自同一个父级的两个级联路径的子表：一个delete，一个null。

什么优先？你以后期待什么？注意：触发器是代码，可以为级联添加一些情报或条件。

In MSSQL 2005 I just struck the infamous error message:

Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint XXX on table YYY may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints.

Now, *** has several topics about this error message, so I've already got the solution (in my case I'll have to use triggers), but I'm curious as to why there is such a problem at all.

As I understand it, there are basically two scenarios that they want to avoid - a cycle and multiple paths. A cycle would be where two tables have cascading foreign keys to each other. OK, a cycle can span several tables too, but this is the basic case and will be easier to analyze.

Multiple paths would be when TableA has foreign keys to TableB and TableC, and TableB also has a foreign key to TableC. Again - this is the minimum basic case.

I cannot see any problems that would arise when a record would get deleted or updated in any of those tables. Sure, you might need to query the same table multiple times to see which records need updating/deleting, but is that really a problem? Is this a performance issue?

In other SO topics people go as far as to label using cascades as "risky" and state that "resolving cascade paths is a complex problem". Why? Where is the risk? Where is the problem?

You have a child table with 2 cascade paths from the same parent: one "delete", one "null".

What takes precedence? What do you expect afterwards? etc

Note: A trigger is code and can add some intelligence or conditions to a cascade.