From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Henk Enting <h(dot)d(dot)enting(at)mgrid(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: tracking inherited columns (was: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance) |
Date: | 2010-08-05 14:10:08 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimimQRcFjPB-8ErEJLex6dXKZ0T1zMZm4K=GuU9@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, if it were only a hint, and thus didn't actually "prevent"
> anything, then it wouldn't be breaking compatibility. But I don't
> like the idea much either. It would be extremely expensive, if not
> impossible, to determine whether all parents having the similarly-named
> column got it from the same common ancestor. (In particular, if the
> user had previously ignored the hint, you could have situations where
> there isn't a unique ancestor that the column can be traced to; then
> what do you do?)
>
> I think we'd be putting huge amounts of effort into a case that no more
> than one or two people would ever hit.
I don't agree that it would be a huge amount of effort, but I do agree
that only a very small number of people will ever hit it, and that it
just doesn't seem worth it. We have bigger fish to fry.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard | 2010-08-05 14:13:29 | Re: Online backup cause boot failure, anyone know why? |
Previous Message | Adriano Lange | 2010-08-05 14:08:25 | Re: TwoPO: experimental join order algorithm |