Re: INHERITS doesn't offer enough functionality

Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>* Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> [001018 04:59] wrote:
>> Do you mean that inheriting tables should share a single index with their
>> ancestors, or that each descendant should get a separate index on the
>> same pattern as its ancestors'?
>>
>> With the former, the inherited index could be used to enforce a primary
>> key over a whole inheritance hierarchy, and would presumable make it
>> easier to implement RI against an inheritance hierarchy. Is this what
>> you have in mind?
>
>Not really, it's more of a convience issue for me, a 'derived table'
>should inherit the attributes of the 'base table' (including indecies),
>having an index shared between two tables is an interesting idea but
>not what I had in mind.

Well then, what will happen if I do

SELECT * FROM table* WHERE inherited_unique_indexed_field = some_value;

would I expect to get back multiple rows? Are all the separate indexes
candidates for use in the selection?

I think you are highlighting the fact that we still haven't satisfactorily
defined the semantics of inheritance in PostgreSQL; is it merely a
template system or is it something more meaningful? What inheritance
specifications are we going to work towards?

--
Oliver Elphick Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47 6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================
"Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give
thee the desires of thine heart." Psalms 37:4