From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |
Date: | 2002-07-31 06:17:50 |
Message-ID: | 25497.1028096270@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Of course we could go the other way and remove support for VIEW's as
> they can be done using a table and a ON SELECT DO INSTEAD rule.
Two points for Hannu ;-)
Seriously, this entire thread seems a waste of bandwidth to me.
Inheritance as a feature isn't costing us anything very noticeable
to maintain, and so I see no credible argument for expending the
effort to rip it out --- even if I placed zero value on the annoyance
factor for users who are depending on it. (Which I surely don't.)
It's true that upgrading inheritance to handle features like cross-table
uniqueness constraints or cross-table foreign keys is not trivial. But
I don't know of any way to handle those problems in bog-standard SQL92
either. The fact that we don't have a solution to those issues at
present doesn't strike me as a reason to rip out the functionality we
do have.
In short: give it a rest. There's lots of things we could be more
productively arguing about. Think about which type conversions should
be implicit, if you need a topic ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-07-31 06:18:41 | Re: Outer join differences |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-07-31 06:13:38 | Re: WAL file location |