| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |