From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Raphael Bauduin <raphael(dot)bauduin(at)be(dot)easynet(dot)net> |
Cc: | mkl(at)webde-ag(dot)de, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: building a row with a plpgsql function |
Date: | 2004-11-03 14:49:06 |
Message-ID: | 4188EFE2.7010409@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Raphael Bauduin wrote:
> That was our first choice design, but we really need that extreme
> flexibility with the details.
> Item details specs are a moving target, with impossibility to prevent
> changes.... Items are also very different, but if we had to have one
> table per item, it would be unmanageable. New items types are regularly
> created too, which would ask the creation of new tables.
> About the different types we could have to store as details: we have a
> table with date details.
>
> I'm also very cautious with that design, and am aware of the risks in
> it, but we have thought about it a long time, and it seems to be the
> best in our situation.
> We are in the final stage in this DB design and all tests until now have
> been positive.
See contrib/tablefunc, and read through the following link for examples
similar to what you are doing:
http://www.joeconway.com/pres_oscon_2004-r1.pdf
http://www.joeconway.com/flex.sql
HTH,
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2004-11-03 14:58:15 | Re: c extension |
Previous Message | Raphael Bauduin | 2004-11-03 14:17:11 | Re: building a row with a plpgsql function |