From: | Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2000-02-03 16:51:33 |
Message-ID: | 1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478C70C161@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
As usual when replying from here, replies prefixed with PM:
--
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 4:26 PM
To: Chris
Cc: Bruce Momjian; pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org;
pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL
PM: [snip]
For the purpose at hand, I think it would be OK to have a
"relhaschildren" field that is set true when the first child is created
and then never changed. If you have a table that once had children but
has none at the moment, then you pay the price of looking through
pg_inherits; but the case that we're really concerned about (a pure SQL,
no-inheritance table) would still win.
PM: Perhaps get vacuum to check for any children when it's set, and if
it finds none, it clears the flag?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-03 16:52:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Taral | 2000-02-03 16:50:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-03 16:52:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Taral | 2000-02-03 16:50:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |