On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:42, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Curt Sampson wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Yea, you have to question what value the discussion has, really. We > > > have users of inheritance that like it. If we can get a TODO item out > > > of the disucssion, great, but there doesn't seem to be any direction of > > > where the discussion is heading. > > > > Summary: > > > > 1. The current implementation is broken. > > > > 2. We have no proper description of how a "fixed" implementation > > should work. > > > > 3. It's hard to fix the current implementation without such a > > description. > > > > 4. Thus, we are in other messages here trying to work out the > > model and come up with such a description. > > > > 5. The people working this out at the moment appear to be me, > > Greg Copeland and Hannu Krosing. > > OK, great summary. Isn't the bottom-line issue the limitation of not > being able to create an index that spans tables? Is there any way to > implement that? We have sequences that can span tables. Can that help > us? >
Actually, I'm not sure that is the bottom line. One of the reasons I
ask so many questions is because I'm trying to understand what the "is"
case is. For me, that is important before I can understand, not only
what the "to-be" picture should be, but what needs to be done to get
there.
Because of that, I tend to agree with Curt. We need to fill in 1, 2,
and 3. As for item number 4, I was hoping that other references would
at least help us understand a "defacto" implementation.
Long story short, for me, it's easy to superficially agree that we need
indexes that span tables but I still have no idea if that really
constitutes "the bottom-line".
Regards,
Greg Copeland
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
