Re: Inheritance

From: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
To: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inheritance
Date: 2002-08-14 15:48:01
Message-ID: 1029340081.13277.81.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 10:17, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:39:06AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
> > I completely agree. This is why I want/wanted to pursue the theory and
> > existing implementations angle.
>
> In theory, it sounds like a good idea. In practice ... ;-)
>

LOL. :)

> > Seems like everyone trying to jump on "index spanning" is premature.
>
> Seems like some people haven't looked at the history of the OO
> implementation in PostgreSQL.

[waving hand...]

>
> Bruce has archived some of the emails - check your local pgsql source tree,
> under <$PGSQLHOME>/doc/TODO.detail/inheritance
>
> There was also some theoretical OO discussion, back when the change for
> default SELECT behavior on an inhertiance tree was made. (You used to
> have to say: SELECT foo from parent* to get foo from the parent and all
> children) Take a look at the archives and see if there's anything in that
> discussion that interests you: providing summary posts of old discussions
> is often a good way to restart and move an unresolved topic along.

Thanks! I briefly read something about that in the archives. Excellent
pointers. I'll check that out. If I have time, I'll try to summarize
and post.

Greg Copeland

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brett Schwarz 2002-08-14 15:51:13 Re: journaling in contrib ...
Previous Message Joe Conway 2002-08-14 15:42:15 another multibyte question