Fwd: Re: SQL3 UNDER

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SQL3 UNDER
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:53:24 -0400
From: Robert B. Easter <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com>

On Tue, 23 May 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> "Robert B. Easter" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 May 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> > > Maybe it would help if you have two examples. One that only uses UNDER,
> > > and one that only uses INHERITS, and explain how one or the other can
> > > work differently.
>
> Yes but how does a pure UNDER example actually work different to a pure
> INHERITS example? You've created various tables below (combining INHERIT
> and UNDER unfortunately), but how will the INHERITS hierarchies and
> UNDER hierarchies actually work differently in practice?
>

I guess I've said most of what I can say about this idea. Attached is another
GIF picture of the ideas, I suppose. If I come up with a good example, I'll
post it.

I'm willing to admit my idea could be very flawed! I'm hoping others in here
will find it worthy enough to try to find those flaws and examples on their own.

I've started posting this OO stuff to pgsql-hackers-oo(at)postgresql(dot)org(dot) I'll
try to not post anymore oo stuff in pgsql-hackers (if there is even anything
else say about this).

Good luck,
Robert B. Easter

-------------------------------------------------------

--
Robert B. Easter
reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com