| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Robert B(dot) Easter'" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com>, "'Postgres Hackers List'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: AW: Postgresql OO Patch |
| Date: | 2000-05-25 10:12:49 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C604AF7DA1@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Benefits:
> > > *) SQL3 says it.
> >
> > Imho this alone more than justifies the patch.
> > We should also change our keyword "inherits" to "under".
> >
>
> I don't agree. UNDER only provides for single inheritance
> according to spec.
> Making it multiple inherit would break UNDER's basic idea of
> enabling hierarchy
> trees that contain subtables under a single maximal
> supertable.
I do not see how someone using the current under|inherits scheme
that only uses SQL99 syntax will get a system that does not act like
defined in SQL99 other than not complaining at "create table under"
time that the supertable is not top level. This alone is imho not enough to
validify two different approaches.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-05-25 10:14:33 | Re: AW: Berkeley DB... |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-05-25 10:04:34 | Re: AW: AW: SQL3 UNDER |