From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE ... INHERITS (parent INCLUDING xxx) |
Date: | 2009-11-02 07:55:59 |
Message-ID: | 20091102165559.C6C7.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Should we have "INHERITS ( parent INCLUDING xxx )" syntax ?
>
> No. That would imply that the user has some control over what is
> inherited and what isn't, which would be a complete mess.
Hmmm, but users can already control using LIKE INCLUDING clause what is
inherited and what isn't. Also, we don't inherit anything from INHERITS
clause in default. We have nothing to lose even if we support INHERITS
+ INCLUDING, no? And there are certain merits; we can avoid unexpected
log messages and don't have to repeat the parent name in DDL.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-11-02 08:25:22 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-11-02 07:44:05 | Re: Patch for automated partitioning |