Re: partitioning using dblink

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: partitioning using dblink
Date: 2008-03-03 23:26:57
Message-ID: 2083.1204586817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> writes:
> Is there a "specific" reason why views can't be part of an inheritance tree?
> I mean: it's that we "don't want" it or it would be just difficult to implement?

It would certainly require a lot of rethinking of assumptions, in the
planner and elsewhere. I have no good idea of how large the actual
patch might end up being if it were attempted. But it's not something
that's high on anyone's wish-list, and there's a chance that it could
interfere with development of inheritance behaviors that people *do*
care about (like partitioning).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message dmp 2008-03-04 02:07:47 Re: PostgreSQL Array Use
Previous Message Scara Maccai 2008-03-03 22:57:35 Re: partitioning using dblink