| From: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql OO Patch |
| Date: | 2000-05-22 11:25:18 |
| Message-ID: | 3929191E.52CA8D20@bitmead.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari wrote:
> At a minimum, it seems to me, the backend must support the
> concept of multiple tuples with different attributes at the
> relation level since concurrency and rollback-ability of ALTER
> TABLE ADD COLUMN will cause two concurrent transactions to see a
> single relation with different attributes. It doesn't seem a
> large leap to support this concept for OO purposes from "leaf" to
> "base". For "base" to "leaf" type queries, wouldn't it be
> acceptable to return the base attributes only, as long as the
> equivalent of run-time type information could be had from the
> OID?
How are you going to be able to go shape.display() and have it work for
a triangle, if the triangle's apex's weren't retrieved?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Horák Daniel | 2000-05-22 11:49:10 | RE: pgsql for win |
| Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2000-05-22 10:12:40 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql OO Patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-05-22 11:30:46 | Re: OO Patch |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-05-22 11:18:25 | Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO) |