| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inheritance |
| Date: | 2002-08-14 15:32:11 |
| Message-ID: | 3D5A77FB.7030602@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> Actually, I think you'll find that once a PostgreSQL DBA gets to
> the point of designing a sufficently complex schema that inheritance
> might be useful, they quickly bump up against the lack of index and
> constraint spanning (most notably, referential integrity), and stop
> right there. This means that there is little community experience with
> the existing implementation, beyond the OO die hards. ;-)
I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with this, because this was exactly my
experience the one time I wanted to use inherited tables.
FWIW, one thought I've had before related to inheritance (but pretty
much orthognal to this discussion) is this: if inheritance included
shared indexes and constraints, we would be not too far from having
Oracle style table partitioning.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-14 15:42:15 | another multibyte question |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-08-14 15:27:37 | Re: Open 7.3 items |