From: | will trillich <will(at)serensoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: History |
Date: | 2003-02-03 10:06:59 |
Message-ID: | 20030203100659.GA3543@mail.serensoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 07:07:42PM -0600, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> > insert into loc(addr,city,zip) values
> > ('329 Main','Middlegulch','24680');
> >
> > then when i
> >
> > select * from delta;
> >
> > i'll see the id (from loc) and the created date as well? hmm!
> > and this way it's ONE sequence for all related tables. i bet
> > that's a nice un-cluttering side-effect. plus, the child tables
> > would all take up that much LESS space, right? whoa, serious
> > paradigm shift in the works... cool!
>
> Shift back. I am not advocating the use of PostgreSQL inheritance. When
> I want to model inheritance I do so explicitly.
>
> CREATE TABLE Person
> (person_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
> first_name VARCHAR(32),
> last_name VARCHAR(32) NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY (person_id));
>
> CREATE TABLE Worker
> (worker_id int NOT NULL REFERENCES (Person),
> date_hired DATE NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY (worker_id));
a subset table, i think that's called. right. i've got those
coming and going. does the inheritence thing work similarly? (do
you advocate the avoidance of postgresql inheritance?)
curious aside -- do you not subscribe to the "all instances of
the same field much be names identically" camp? they'd have you
rename worker.worker_id to worker.person_id ... what's your
take?
> > but -- is there some way to tell which offspring table the delta
> > record came from? now THAT would be useful.
>
> There is no good way.
i like oliver's revelation. easy to hobble together a view to do
that and have it be part of the system toolkit...
> You moved the goal posts. I thought you wanted a history table
> to store changes per row. How's that coming along?
w.trillich (lurking and learning) != OP
i'm all for reducing redundancy -- and if i can have all of my
(
id serial,
created date,
modified timestamp(0),
by,
)
fields in one table with others referring to it, i'm all the
happier. is there a significant drawback to doing that kind of
thing? (this looks like exactly that kind of application that
that feature was born and bred for...)
--
There are 10 kinds of people:
ones that get binary, and ones that don't.
will(at)serensoft(dot)com
http://sourceforge.net/projects/newbiedoc -- we need your brain!
http://www.dontUthink.com/ -- your brain needs us!
Looking for a firewall? Do you think smoothwall sucks? You're
probably right... Try the folks at http://clarkconnect.org/ !
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2003-02-03 10:27:05 | Re: DBI driver and transactions |
Previous Message | Jean-Christian Imbeault | 2003-02-03 09:55:35 | Dferred constraints not deferred? |