| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Inheritance and column mapping |
| Date: | 2014-10-02 14:00:35 |
| Message-ID: | 25921.1412258435@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> writes:
> Was there ever any discussion.thought about being able to follow a non-strict by name
> column mapping between inherited tables and father tables?
No. You could use a view with UNION ALL perhaps.
(The subtext here is that past discussion of inheritance has generally
focused on *eliminating* differences between parent and child tables, so
as to make query planning and execution faster/simpler. That is, when the
discussion doesn't consist of somebody wanting to get rid of inheritance
altogether. I think the enthusiasm for supporting even-less-compatible
child tables will be not distinguishable from zero.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Brusselback | 2014-10-02 14:27:44 | Re: table versioning approach (not auditing) |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2014-10-02 12:11:52 | Re: PostgreSQL Inheritance and column mapping |