Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:43, Curt Sampson wrote:
And I think a detailed description comes most easily when you have
a logical model to work from.
I completely agree. This is why I want/wanted to pursue the theory and
existing implementations angle.
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 11:17, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:39:06AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:43, Curt Sampson wrote:
Just my opinion of course, but I think it would be best to have a
detailed description of how everything in inheritance is
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
I agree. Table-spanning indexes would be a large, complex,
difficult-to-get-right feature. Before diving into that we should get
some idea of just how we'd actually use them, and whether that's the
only big chunk of work standing between us and a more
Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's my biggest fear as well. Here are a couple of possible
assertions we could make about supertables and subtables that have,
I think, some fairly far-reaching implications.
CHECK-style constraints don't seem like a huge issue to me. We already
have
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
It's nonlocal constraints that are the problem, and here foreign keys
and UNIQUE constraints are certainly the canonical examples. Both of
these would be largely solved with table-spanning indexes I think.
Note that the other obvious way to solve this
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Surely 99% of the implementation problems could be solved with an
index type that can span tables?
Maybe.
But my problem is not so much that it's broken, as nobody can
explain exactly what fixed would be. I mean, completely fixed,
not just
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
1. The current implementation is broken.
2. We have no proper description of how a fixed implementation
should work.
Surely 99% of the implementation problems could be solved with an index type
that can span tables?
Right. Instead of
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 09:38, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
1. The current implementation is broken.
2. We have no proper description of how a fixed implementation
should work.
Surely 99% of the implementation problems could be solved with an index type
that can span
Right. Instead of talking in circles, let's figure out how to do it.
If the issue is only sequence numbers, can we force a column to _only_
get values from the sequence counter, thereby makeing the index span
unnecessary? Can't we look up stuff in parent/child index to check for
collisions
At 02:17 PM 7/20/02 +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
Have you tried it using the standard relational method of doing this?
(I.e., you put the common fields in one table, and the extra fields in
other tables, along with a foreign key relating the extra fields back
to the main table.) That would more
On Sat, 7 Oct 2000, Alex Pilosov wrote:
Can I do following?
create table foo (
x int4 references bar*
)
Or, since 7.1 will have bar* as default for bar, will using 'references
bar' do what I want?
No, and not really. Parts of it may sort of work, but referential
actions will
101 - 111 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
