Re: [SQL] [pgsql-advocacy] SQL Spec Compliance Questions
Joe, > After re-reading it, I think it is related to (or at least similar to) > the work Tom is currently doing to allow composite types as table > attributes. That's what I thought at first as well, and told the requestor that we would support them in the next two versions. But reading that paragraph makes me think that the type is somehow supposed to contain metadata or summary data for the table itself. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [SQL] [pgsql-advocacy] SQL Spec Compliance Questions
Josh Berkus wrote: 4.16.2 Referenceable tables, subtables, and supertables A table BT whose row type is derived from a structured type ST is called a typed table. Only a base table or a view can be a typed table. A typed table has columns corresponding, in name and declared type, to every attribute of ST and one other column REFC that is the self-referencing column of BT; let REFCN be the I really don't quite understand this, but I don't think we have it ;-) Was the SQL99 Committee smoking crack, or what?What the heck is that *for*? After re-reading it, I think it is related to (or at least similar to) the work Tom is currently doing to allow composite types as table attributes. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [SQL] [pgsql-advocacy] SQL Spec Compliance Questions
Joe, Thanks for your help! > 4.16.2 Referenceable tables, subtables, and supertables > A table BT whose row type is derived from a structured type ST is > called a typed table. Only a base table or a view can be a typed > table. A typed table has columns corresponding, in name and > declared type, to every attribute of ST and one other column REFC > that is the self-referencing column of BT; let REFCN be the > > I really don't quite understand this, but I don't think we have it ;-) Ye Gods and Little Fishes!! Was the SQL99 Committee smoking crack, or what?What the heck is that *for*? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [SQL] [pgsql-advocacy] SQL Spec Compliance Questions
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> 4.16.2 Referenceable tables, subtables, and supertables >>> A table BT whose row type is derived from a structured type ST is >>> called a typed table. Only a base table or a view can be a typed >>> table. A typed table has columns corresponding, in name and >>> declared type, to every attribute of ST and one other column REFC >>> that is the self-referencing column of BT; let REFCN be the > After re-reading it, I think it is related to (or at least similar to) > the work Tom is currently doing to allow composite types as table > attributes. The "structured type" stuff seems closely related, but I do not understand the business about a "self-referencing column". I have a feeling that it might be a mutant version of our notion of inheritance ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
