From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "'Robert B(dot) Easter'" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com>, "'Chris Bitmead'" <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, "'Postgres Hackers List'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AW: SQL3 UNDER |
Date: | 2000-05-25 09:12:21 |
Message-ID: | 392CEE75.FC7E6F6C@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
> > For multiple
> > inheritance, why not just suggest the use of INHERITS, which is
> > already a Postgres language extension for multiple
> > inheritance. UNDER covers
> > the tree/hierarchy situation, so make it only to SQL3 standards.
> > INHERIT fits the clone/copy/inherits situation that, like I've
> > said before, is like starting a new tree.
>
> Imho the difference is so marginal, that I would not like to see two
> different implementations. Informix e.g. took what Illustra had
> for inherits and only changed the keyword to under, which is imho
> what we should do.
Agreed.
> When calling functions with a class argument they do pass all attributes
> of subclasses to it. They use late function binding, so you can define
> different functions for different subclasses having the same name.
> They only show parent columns when doing 'select * from class' that has
> subclasses.
That's what we are planning also, to return all columns current
favourite syntax to use is 'select ** from class', but even it is not
yet implemented.
BTW, does Informix/Illustra do single or multiple inheritance with their
UNDER?
-------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Louis-David Mitterrand | 2000-05-25 09:40:56 | Re: understanding Datum -> char * -> Datum conversions |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-05-25 09:08:41 | AW: Last call for comments: fmgr rewrite [LONG] |