From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Maxim Yablokov <m(dot)yablokov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Example 43.6. A PL/pgSQL Trigger Function for Maintaining a Summary Table |
Date: | 2023-10-28 02:16:54 |
Message-ID: | 1688333.1698459414@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> Thanks, I'll await pushing and backpatching if Tom who committed it has
> insights into whether it was missed or if it indeed serves a purpose.
Hey, I just pushed that for somebody else, I don't claim authorship ;-)
It seems clear that the example intends to show a star-schema database
where the fact table refers to various dimension tables. But it's
incomplete --- there's no foreign-key constraint on time_key, and
even less infrastructure for product_key or store_key. I don't
have the cited book either, so I don't know how complete the original
example was. Perhaps the bit in the trigger function about forbidding
updates to time_key has something to do with that model.
Anyway, I don't see any reason to object to this patch. The extra
table isn't adding much. My only thought is would it make sense to
change time_key to be a timestamp or timestamptz value?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-10-28 08:53:58 | Re: unnest multirange, returned order |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-10-28 01:12:18 | Re: Typo in docs for "recovery_init_sync_method" parameter. |