| From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Gulutzan <71022(dot)733(at)compuserve(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inheritance |
| Date: | 2002-09-05 01:57:05 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0209051055140.419-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yep, this is where we are stuck; having an index span multiple tables
> in some way.
Or implementing it by keeping all data in the table in which it
was declared. (I.e., supertable holds all rows; subtable holds
only the primary key and those columns of the row that are not
in the supertable.)
From looking at the various discussions of this in books, and what
it appears to me that the SQL standard says, it seems that their
overall vision of table inheritance is to be consistent with the
implementation that I described above.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-09-05 02:39:33 | beta1 packaged |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-05 01:46:36 | Re: Schemas not available for pl/pgsql %TYPE.... |